"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of it's more aggressive advocates would have us believe."Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Although I can appeciate the evolutionists scientific view when discussing the origins of life I am also amazed at how "their" perception on the matter is to be the only one considered as "scientific" (according to them) as opposed to those within the science community who feel that the same science points towards Intelligent Design. After all, are not both theories? And are not both theories based on science? And most importantly, do they not both have a belief?
I have often discovered that the evolutionist will dismiss Intelligent Design because it requires belief in a deity. Yet at the same time the evolutionist requires a same "belief" that there is nothing after life. If neither can be "proven" and both are considered theories based on science then one cannot claim to be science while the other is simply dismissed.
A friend of mine on the evolutionary side of the spectrum once explained it to me this way:
"...someone who arrives to a conclusion that we were made by a supernatural being using science is biased.[That] is, science cannot deal with knowledge beyond nature."
Says who? What if the more the science of evolution is tested for it's merit the more it leans away from evolution and more towards Intelligent Design. For example, one of the "scientific" arguements for the evolutionary process is the close genetic similarities between man and chimpanzee. That being a difference of 1.6%.
I could argue that there are many species, fruits, and atmoshpere formations that share identical genetical similarities and I could also point out the none of them imply evolutionary relationship. But for the sake of the evolutionist, let's stick to the science.
Here is what we know of random genetic mutation. That the slightest altering of the genome is fatal to the extreme and crippling to the least.
" The vast, vast majority of genetic mutations are usually lethal, or at least crippling to the organism, drastically damaging survival and function. A few examples in humans include trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome), polycystic kidney disease, and cystic fibroses…The important point is that science has now quatitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.000000 percent) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal!…Now the genetic difference between human and his “nearest relative”, the chimpanzee, is a least 1.6 percent. That doesn’t sounds like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. A random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and, of course, the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change)…obviously there is no way to bridge even small genetic gaps successfully between animal species closely resembling each other.”
Genetics Researcher Barry T. Maddox, “Human Genome Project: Quantitative Disprove of Evolution”, Cleburne, Texas: Self Published, 1992, pp. 1-3
A difference of 48 million nucleotide and if so much as three are out of order it is fatal! Mathematically speaking the difference is not only astronomical but the chances of this randomisation ever occuring are about 1 in 10 with about 60 zero's after it. By scientific standards that would be declared impossible.
But what if the genetic difference between man and chimp were to be larger then 1.6%? The chances of natural randomisation would be up against even greater odds. Impossibiltites we could not mathematically fathom.
“What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.”
Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D
So what does science tell us today? Is it still as conclusive about our genetic similiarties? I am not so sure. It was , Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology who around 1972 came up with the conclusion that genetic similiarities between man and chimp were 98.5%. I am quite sure that evolutionists would vehemently defend these findings by a respected colleague. After all he is a fellow scientist and evolutionist.But what if Roy Britten himself were to dismiss his original findings based on his own negligence? It is certainly within the parameters of responsible science to correct original findings...is it not? According to Roy Britten the genetic similaritiy between man and chimp is now 94.5%. Here is a recent update:
“The new figure, 94.5 percent or less, was proposed by the same man who many decades ago had published the 98.5 percent figure, Roy Britten (California Institute of Technology). Britten’s original 98.5 percent figure compared only one type of variation, called single base variation, in which a single “letter” of genetic code is different in corresponding strands of DNA from humans and chimps. However, there are two other major variations that Britten ignored in his original analysis. These types involve large sections of many “letters” of DNA, called insertions and deletions. When Britten factored these types of variations in, they added 4 percent to the difference between humans and chimps. Further, this difference is based on only about one million DNA bases out of the estimated three billion that make up each of the human and chimp genomes. Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.”
Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, Revised and Updated, Master Books, 2004, pp. 304-305. Lubenow quotes Britten from Andy Coghlan, “Not Such Close Cousins after all”, New Scientist Magazine, 28 September, 2002, p. 20
The math is beyond impossible. Will the evolutionist accept this. Maybe, but I suspect they will either find a way around it or simply dismiss it. I am left to conclude that well meaning and respected evolutionists will not embrace the "possibity" of Intelligent Design (even if the science is there to suggest it)quite simply because they do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature.With more biochemists, biologists, and other researchers (not necessarily individuals of any faith) over recent years raising serious objections over the science of evolution it is no longer a debate of science vs. religion but one of science vs. science. Until next time...
61 comments:
I'm an anthropologist by training (i.e. I work on the assumption that we humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor). The REASON that I work on this assumption is because there is more evidence to suggest this than not. The REASON that I don't agree with intelligent design (which is not a scientific theory by the by, and I'll explain why) is because it is unfalsifiable. That falsifiability is the essence of a scientific theory - can it be proven wrong? With intelligent design, you've built faith in a deity into it. You can't falsify god or faith, much as science can try. It's not testable - 'does god exist?' - it's not an experiment that someone can do and come up with a 'no' answer. Therefor, sure, I accept that evolution is a theory, and might be PROVEN WRONG. I don't accept intelligent design as a theory because it never will be... it can't be. Therefor, it's no more a theory than creationism is. That's why us 'evolutionists' don't accept it as a theory. It has nothing to do with the fact that we're protecting our own ideas, or not wanting to admit that we're wrong, or whatever other accusations have been leveled at us. It's because as a scientist, I need more to go on than faith, if we're talking about science. I would never tell someone that they HAD to believe in evolution, or that they SHOULDN'T believe in intelligent design (unlike many ID supporters, I might add)... but I do think that it should be acknowledged as based on a religious faith, and not on science. BTW - I'm not an atheist... I don't NOT believe in a creator... but what I DO believe in is scientifically testable proof... and right now, I have no proof to suggest anything other than what I currently hold as the likely truth. I'm sure in 500 years people will look back and think 'wow those people were stupid, did they ever get it wrong!' much like we do today... who knows. BUT, I'm making an educated guess about what I think happened.
And ps - your scientist that you quoted as saying 'the vast majority of mutations are crippling at the least and fatal at worst' is very very wrong. I know someone with webbed feet, someone else with a toe that grows out of the top of their foot, etc. etc.... all of these are harmless mutations. Same with anyone who knows anything about bird or reptile breeding... we can manipulate known genetic mutations that are harmless to the animal but result in pretty colors, to make them look nicer and more pleasing to the eye. There can also be mutations at a genetic level that won't even manifest themselves visibly. They might not even affect the person and the person wouldn't know it was there. In fact MOST mutations are of this sort... so your scientist has some bad information....
I knew you would not let me down my "counter-point" adversary :) Allow me to break some of this down for you. I feel you have misunderstood some, and dismissed other stuff (just like I said an evolutionist would.)
" ...I work on this assumption is because there is more evidence to suggest this than not"
By this I assume you are referring of course to evolution. However the point of this entry is to display how the "evidence" is continuing to unravel and fall apart. The foundation of the evolutionary theory is breaking open with more and more holes as science continues to make new discoveries in the area of genetics and DNA structures. Yet the the evolutionist will defend this as the ONLY acceptable science because as you say:
" That falsifiability is the essence of a scientific theory - can it be proven wrong? With intelligent design, you've built faith in a deity into it."
This is where misunderstanding occurs as well as undermining of very valid science. The evolutionist ALWAYS assumes that when science, whether it be thru a researcher, biologist, or biochemist, leads to Intelligent Design that the individuals or group who have come up with such hypothesis are religious fanatatics looking for science to back up their own personal belief. Many are in the same postion as the atheist and over the years of following the changes of original findings and the impossibility of the "odds" have re-drawn their conclusions to say "something bigger then us is behind this" The findings are based on scientific discovery. To dismiss valid science because it tends to lean toward "something bigger" is a display of human arrogance and backs up my point that the evolutionist is not open minded to considering all science except that which agrees with their own "belief".. that we are monkeys! It would come across, at least to me, that the evolutionist is the one with something to prove. They almost sound "religious" in the way they defend their science even while it is falling apart. Let's continue:
" I need more to go on than faith" yet just before this you said: "I accept that evolution is a theory, and might be PROVEN WRONG"
I am not "taking a shot" here but you contradict yourself when you say this. You require more then faith yet that is all you can go on when it comes to evolution. It is just a theory as you say. One that is untestable. I will qoute my friend John Feakes who said it best:
"Evolution is not based on observable, testable, demonstrable, repeatable, scientific facts, but on philosophical presuppositions. This creates an interesting contradiction in for the evolutionist, since he asserts that creation is to be rejected for it's unscientific nature"
My point exactly. (He just said it better) It is my, humble of course, opinion that evolutionists are either being educated in ONLY one kind of science or are unwilling to consider other tangible and legitimate science that has just as much validity.
On your last paragraph you proved my point again when I stated in my entry:
"but I suspect they (evolutionists) will either find a way around it or simply dismiss it"(the science)
How do you dismiss a highly respected and reputable Genetics Researcher such as Barry Maddox as "my scientist"? His conclusions are based on scientific findings, NOT theories. With regards to your webbed foot friend take note that he/she has not evolved into a duck. These types of malformities go on not only in human beings but animals as well and prove nothing. The species remains within it's genetic code, it does not evolve or morph into something completely different. The science IS conclusive that genetic mutations on a macro-evolutionary level are impossible. That is not a faith based conclusion. The science supports it.
First, I'm going to go back and read, because you're right - I was busy and skimmed a lot of your article, so I did leave stuff out.. I'll do a better response. BUT in regards to your last paragraph of your reply to me:
"How do you dismiss a highly respected and reputable Genetics Researcher such as Barry Maddox as "my scientist"? His conclusions are based on scientific findings, NOT theories. With regards to your webbed foot friend take note that he/she has not evolved into a duck. These types of malformities go on not only in human beings but animals as well and prove nothing. The species remains within it's genetic code, it does not evolve or morph into something completely different. The science IS conclusive that genetic mutations on a macro-evolutionary level are impossible. That is not a faith based conclusion. The science supports it."
I'm totally lost as to what you're saying here. I wasn't suggesting that small mutations cause evolution... that's actually not at all what evolution presupposes. It has nothing to do with mutations. It wouldn't be EVOLUTION if it did. I was suggesting that Mr. Maddox (forgive me if he's a Dr. - you didn't specify, and I mean no disrespect here) is clearly not aware of what I just said about mutations. He states that "The vast, vast majority of genetic mutations are usually lethal, or at least crippling to the organism, drastically damaging survival and function." This is incorrect. Even you say that an alteration of the genome is crippling or fatal. Again incorrect. Of course a mutation has the capacity to be crippling or fatal, but the vast majority of mutations in fact do NOT result in any problems to the individual. But again, this is a moot point since evolution isn't based on mutations.
You say I ignored much of your post. Indeed I did because you're not actually arguing about anything that has anything to do with evolution. You're arguing mutations... not the same thing. Here is the basis of evolution...maybe you ID'ers don't understand the premise.
Evolution is NOT based on one animal suddenly sprouting a mutation that better adapts him to his environment, and thus all the animals without that mutation die out and only the mutants survive (as seems to be the way you're presenting it). Here's how it does work. And I'm going to give you a real example, observed in modern times, that PROVES the core of this theory (or at least strongly supports it). Ok. So. Say for example we have a whole bunch of moths. These moths live in Britain. Let's pretend we have a population of 1000 moths. In that population of 1000 moths, 990 are grey, but 10 of them are sort of greyish brown - not because of any mutation, but just because of the natural variation which occurs within species (like people having blond or black hair). The industrial revolution comes about... suddenly, all those grey trees that the moths were resting on become brown icky buildings. All those grey moths become darn easy to see, and birds/predators eat them because they don't camoflauge well anymore. BUT those 10 little brownish colored moths blend into their new surroundings quite well. They survive, and multiply. Now, in only a few years, we see 990 brown moths and only 10 grey moths. Suddenly...this little moth displayed EVOLUTION. Granted, this is small scale. But it happens all over the place - look at isolated island populations becoming smaller over time. How do you explain that with ID? It's these few individuals who just by chance happened to have a slightly longer tail, or slightly longer neck, or more teeth, or a crooked nose, or are slightly smaller/bigger - by CHANCE of their genetic makeup, not becuase of crazy mutations - that somehow have an advantage in their environment and live to produce the most babies. These babies (or SOME of these babies) contain the genetic traits to carry on the advantage that helped their parents. They TOO get to survive longer/be healthier to produce the most babies. Thus, those individuals with these slightly different little adaptations eventually become the norm for their population.
So - people COULD HAVE come from apes, without the aid of the crazy math that you did up there which makes no sense to my poor little anthropologist brain. I'm not ignoring your so called 'proof' that evolution isn't possible...I'm saying that I have my own counter arguements...which I understand. I can show you sequences of changes within the same, say, small structures within the skull that change ever so slightly from monkeys to apes to humans over time. You're right, I don't have fancy numbers with 60 zeros after it to support me. I have observable empirical evidence. Where's your empirical evidence that God created the universe?
Mandora: I am off to work and you have gotten me so busy on "Pourquoi Pas?" that I cannot respond in full. So I will just tackle one area for now.
I will try and sum up briefly here to your statement:
"I'm totally lost as to what you're saying here"
Let me try to explain and who knows, I may still leave you confused. Not your, fault it could be the way I am presenting it.
Some of the examples you used, regarding webbed feet, extra toes, and even animal breeding (manipulating genetics for pretty colors). These all fall under the category of micro evoltuion. (This would also include your story on the moths.) Micro evolution is an area that both IDers and evolutionists agree is scientifically founded. Micro evolution is no longer theoretical because it has been substantiated on solid evidence. It occurs and both sides agree upon it because the science supports it. It is proven not theorized.
In the case of macro evolution (from monkey to man) that is a completely different story. Macro evolution is on a much larger scale that is not only "not proven" but as my article suggest's, scientific discovery is now disproving it altogether. The science takes apart the theory (of evolution) not the IDer.
I know this does not answer everything in full but cut me some slack. I have been busy trying to bring world peace to a bunch of left wing freedom fighters! :)))
Ok, didn't see where your beef was. Gotcha. Unfortunatly, micro evolution is the same as macro evolution... macro is just bigger. It's the same process... I could go through step by step what we have right now that suggests monkeys - apes - humans, but it's the same as the moth example, and I have yet to see anything that disproves it. Mutations have nothing to do with evolution at any level, and unfortunatly, the mathematical 'proof' that you have against evolution is based on mutation.... so, I'm not seeing where science has 'disproved' evolution. ??
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Mandora:
" micro evolution is the same as macro evolution... macro is just bigger"
Agreed.I believe I had stated that somewhere along this thread. Micro being minute altering (less then a billionth of 1%) of the genome that there is no fatal or crippling occurrence. Micro evolution suggest's adaption to an enviorment.
" I could go through step by step what we have right now that suggests monkeys - apes - humans, but it's the same as the moth example, and I have yet to see anything that disproves it"
I am quite familiar with the process and I understand the moth example comparison. Because the genome difference between man and chimp is so vast this suggests "evolution" on a macro evolutionary scale. Here is what the science tells us, that genomes when altered in the slightest way (1 billionth of 1%) causes death in the species. We know, thru the science, that in order for chimp to have evolved over time the genetic altering would have been far too vast for us to have survived such a dramatic genetic change. Especially now that we see our genetic differences are only 94.5% similiar and may even be less then that upon further study.
If we apply the suggestion, as in the case of the moths, that because this happened so slowly and suddly over a very long period of time then again the math does not support it. According to the "experts" man has been around for about 600,000 years.
In order for ape to man evolution to even become a possible "whiff in the wind" (and this would still leave it highly questionable) our species would have to have been on this earth for hundreds of millions of years! Possibly into the billions. And there would still be no evidence to suggest we would have survived the genetic altering.
Secondly, when we bring the fossil records into the equation, there is no trace of natural progression. Even Charles Darwin conceded that the lack of fossil evidence:
"is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory.
That being 140 (approx.) years ago he had assumed by our time, with far more expansive archeological digs, we would have discovered the "missing link"
What we do have is this "sudden" appearance of nearly all animal phyla and they appear fully formed. Yet we find no trace of evolutionary "ancestors"
David M. Raup who was the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) back in the 70's also acknowledged:
"...the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species, but the situation hasn't changed much...We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
I also recall reading an article (Doh! I wish I still had it) about the discovery, back in the 1950's, of a Cro-magnon man's skull approx. dated to be tens of thousands of years old. As advances in science became more available, three and half decades later the very same skull was determined to be that of a 500 year old deformed woman!
From my perspective, as you stated before:
" I have yet to see anything that disproves it"
I believe the evidence is already before you. Even Chucky Darwin summed up quite nicely when he said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutley break down."
Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species
Sista!!! That day and science has now arrived.
I have a couple of things to say in response to that:
The anthropological/archaeological landscape is constantly changing. I havn't taken a course in archaeology in about 8 months, and since then, about 3 new species have been found which fit somewhere on our evolutionary ladder. SO for you to say that there is no evidence, I strongly STRONGLY disagree. I've held in my hands skulls which demonstrate an evolutionary link.
Second, of course Darwin didn't see the link in the fossils. In his day we had 3 hominid species. Now we have nearly 30 last time I checked. SO - dunno where you come up with 'there's less evidence now'
The fossil record is actually quite strong in it's support for evolution.
Finally, the modification of a genome bit - yes... if you're modifying a genome as through mutation. NOT through a long-term process like evolution.... sorry, your science doesn't hold up.
I still stand behind ID'ers are not providing me with anything other than smoke and mirrors numbers, which when really examined don't actually PROVE anything.
My point with the mutation portion is that in order for "evolution" to take place there HAS TO BE an altering of the genetic make up. Mutating is another term for morphing or an alteration of the geneitic make up.
The science, I think is bluntly plain, the genetic differences between man and monkey are to vast for our species to have survived that type of "evolution".
A cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish for example all share similiar compositions in that all three are made up of almost 100% water. They are closer to each other then man is to monkey yet we would not claim that one "fathered" the other. Would we?
Genetetic similiarities DO NOT imply evolutionary relationship. Neither do a pile of bones just because they appear similiar.
" sorry, your science doesn't hold up."
Again, it is not MY science. It just IS science. Genetic mutation/morphing/altering on the grand scale that man came from monkey is impossible. According to THE science we could not have survived such a large genetic change.
"I still stand behind ID'ers are not providing me with anything other than smoke and mirrors numbers, which when really examined don't actually PROVE anything."
All the science I provided came from reputable biochemists, researchers, and scientist's. Some of who once stood on the side of evolution. This is not something IDers made up. It was something science has been unravelling all on it's own. And where is this smoke and mirrors you speak of? I present science and your side presents possible, hypothetical, and maybe's. Where is your proof that this process happened over a long period of time? It is all guesstimation for the evolutionist.
I am of the opinion that evolutionists are on the brink of making science up to keep their shipwreck afloat. I do not know how much more science is required (heavy sigh!) but I will keep on digging.
"My point with the mutation portion is that in order for "evolution" to take place there HAS TO BE an altering of the genetic make up. Mutating is another term for morphing or an alteration of the geneitic make up."
NO!!! THIS IS NOT CORRECT!!! This is where I'm getting frustrated with your argument... and why I think ID'ers just don't get it. You're not understanding the biological process that IS evolution.
MUTATION IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION!! THEY ARE SEPERATE AND NOT AT ALL RELATED - AT ALL!!!!
A mutation is a spontaneous change in genetic material. An abnormality or 'screw up' if you will, that happens at the F1 generation. Evolution builds on traits that are PERFECTLY NORMAL AND REASONABLE representations of traits within a particular species, and take many many generations to take hold as a dominant, expected trait for a particular species. For example, a turtle with a slightly higher shell carapace does not have a MUTATION it simply was born with a little higher carapace...
Just like I'm short (5'2") and my sister is tall (5'7"). Neither of us has a mutation, we just have different genes. If I have children, they'll likely be small. If she has children, they'll likely be big. If for some reason, food becomes accessable only to people who are 5'7" or taller, all of my kids would die because they can't reach it. SO her kids would live to produce the next generation, mine wouldn't. Eventually, all the genes for shortness would die away because there's no advantage to being short. In fact, there's a distint DISADVANTAGE. Evolution has to do with characteristics that are already a part of the genetic makeup being selected for. NOT MUTATIONS. This is totally different. SO the genetic material isn't being altered through mutations. Overtime there is just a shift in what makes up a particular species. That's why we havn't found 'the missing link.' By definition there can't be one. Technically, we are all the same species - the long line of evolution from monkey to ape to man is all the same species... we just see changes occuring. Thats why scientists argue about how many species there actually are in our lineage, because who gets to decide at what point something becomes a different species? Its just a continuum....
THATS why there's a difference of 1% DNA between chimps and humans. Somewhere WAAAAY back we had a common ancestor. That ancestor broke into two populations. One went off into an environment that selected for traits that we now see in humans, the other into an environment that selected for traits that we now see in chimps. Do you see? This is NOT impossible at all... this is a rational, reasonable explanation that does not depend on some sort of crazy mutation that's impossible. It's VERY possible. It's the same as micro evolution, except it just keeps going. For a VERY long period of time.
If you still don't buy this, then tell me what you do buy. I'm open to a more logical solution... I'm not seeing one. If you think that evolution is so faulty, explain how else this process happened.... and what evidence you have to support it.
Mandora:
"This is where I'm getting frustrated with your argument."
Right now I have this visual in my head of this little 5'2" mad woman rolling on the ground, kicking her feet, turning 8 shades of red, and screaming into a pillow at the top of her lungs "I hate you Intolerant One! I hate you! Your such a dumbass, just like your fish!!!!" :)))))LOL
Alright, I understand better where you are coming from and what excactly you are asking me to provide. Give me sometime, it is the weekend and I will get back to you on this.
Simma down now! (you crack me up!)
LOL! It's like you have a spy camera in my house!!
*looking around wildly*
:)
Just like I'm short (5'2") and my sister is tall (5'7"). Neither of us has a mutation, we just have different genes. If I have children, they'll likely be small. If she has children, they'll likely be big. If for some reason, food becomes accessable only to people who are 5'7" or taller, all of my kids would die because they can't reach it. SO her kids would live to produce the next generation, mine wouldn't. Eventually, all the genes for shortness would die away because there's no advantage to being short. In fact, there's a distint DISADVANTAGE. Evolution has to do with characteristics that are already a part of the genetic makeup being selected for. NOT MUTATIONS. This is totally different. SO the genetic material isn't being altered through mutations. Overtime there is just a shift in what makes up a particular species. That's why we havn't found 'the missing link.' By definition there can't be one. Technically, we are all the same species - the long line of evolution from monkey to ape to man is all the same species... we just see changes occuring. Thats why scientists argue about how many species there actually are in our lineage, because who gets to decide at what point something becomes a different species? Its just a continuum....
I may be missing something but this arguement seems very hard to believe. Based on this logic I don't understand how there could still be apes around.
The same apes are not around as there were a million years ago. They've evolved too. They didn't stay the same... ?? how is that hard to follow?
Sorry, let me explain it better.
We started with one species of ape.. the proverbial 'missing link'. This animal split into two (or three, or four, we don't know) populations. One population went through the evolutionary steps to become human beings. The other populations didn't experience the same environmental stimuli, and thus, didn't evolve in the same way. They became the apes we have today. And many many species died out along the way because they didn't have the necessary components in their genetic makeup to adapt to particular environments, and thus died out.
OK Mandora, I said:
""My point with the mutation portion is that in order for "evolution" to take place there HAS TO BE an altering of the genetic make up. Mutating is another term for morphing or an alteration of the geneitic make up."
You said:
"NO!!! THIS IS NOT CORRECT!!!"
You then go on to say:
" You're not understanding the biological process that IS evolution.
MUTATION IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION!! THEY ARE SEPERATE AND NOT AT ALL RELATED - AT ALL!!!!"
I remember thinking to myself when I read this, if it is not "mutating" then what is it? I have always understood that this is how science defined this "evolutionary" process. Have I misunderstood? If I am wrong, I will need to concede this.
So then I thought I must go back to the "experts" and figure this whole thing out as I said I would get back to you on this. If it is NOT MUTATION as you say then what is it?
Well...ahem.....grab your pillow and get ready to scream because here is what they said: (don't curse my name, I did not say it!)
“It must not be forgotten that MUTATION IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE of all the variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection and evolution.”
E. Mayr, “Populations, Species and Evolution, 1970, p.103
Another expert:
“THE PROCESS OF MUTATION IS THE ONLY KNOWN SOURCE of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”
T. Dobzansky, as quoted in “American Scientist”, 45, 1957, p. 385
Yet again:
"“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on RANDOM MUTATIONS.”
Michael Ruse, “Philosophy of Biology, 1973, p. 96
Still going (anything left of your pillow?)
“It remains true to say that we know of NO OTHER WAY THEN RANDOM MUTATION by which new heredity variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the heredity constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next.”
C.H. Waddington, “The nature of Life”, 1962, p. 98
And finally (for now anyway)
“DNA sequences are normally copied exactly during the process of chromosome replication. Rarely, however, errors occur that give rise to new sequences. These errors are called mutations. Mutations can occur in either somatic or germ-line cells. Since somatic mutations are not inherited, we can disregard them in an evolutionary context, and throughout this book the term ‘mutation’ will denote mutations in germ-line cells.”
Wen-Hsiung Li and Dan Graur, “Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution”, Sinauer Associates, 1991, P. 12
I found this last qoute interesting as I note that DNA replication is exact. Any altering outside of that is known to be recognised as an error, one that apparently is rare, and is known as mutation.
I have scoured sista and all the science is calling it mutation as well. You cannot accuse the individuals I qouted as being supporters of the intelligent design theory. These are scientists that even evolutionists would credit.
Back to you for more kickin' and screamin' ;)
Firstly, I'm not suggesting that I support scientists based on their stance on evolution - let's get that straight. Just because someone is an evolutionist doesn't mean I'll automatically agree with what they say, and vice versa for ID'ers. I agree with someone based on the merits of their arguements, not their personal convictions.
That said - I'm not suggesting that mutations cannot play a ROLE in evolution, of course they can. But they are NOT the primary source of change. A mutation is a sudden change in DNA structure - the driving force behind evolution is a teeny tiny incremental change. In other words, it's a question of degree, not of kind. The BASIS of evolution is that it plays off of things that are already there, NOT off of sudden genetic mutations. If it were, the whole process would happen a hell of a lot faster than it does. Heck, we could do it in a few generations!
SO - all of your sources ARE correct when they say that mutations can affect evolution, BUT no one is saying that it's the only, or even the PRIMARY means of facilitating evolution. (the one guy that says it's the primary source for new material is right... NEW material. BUT there is a lot of variation without ever having to change the genetics.)
And also, just as an aside - be critical of your sources. I have on my bookshelf at this very moment TWO books that have 'scientifically proven' that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites and one article that scientifically 'prooves' that aboriginal canadians cannot process liquor the same as other groups and thus are more prone to alcoholism.
Clearly, this is nonsense on both accounts. BUT 'scientists' said it...
And, since I have just as many sources (actually, likely more since this was one of my main areas of study in my undergrad years) that argue my point... I'm not sure how to suggest which 'scientists' are correct....
except that the science that I've argued works, makes sense, and is applicable to the fossil evidence that we have. Until I hear a better explanation, I stand behind evolution.
"except that the science that I've argued works, makes sense, and is applicable to the fossil evidence"
annnnd the science I used does not work? (even though it is concrete and varifiable) Well you did prove my point in one area...even with science continually disecting the evolutionary theory the evolutionist will vehmently and religiously defend it anyways.
So you refuse to say "uncle" then?
...and how is that pillow? Need a new one yet? :)))))LOL Just picking on ya. No hard feelings I hope. This has been a very good debate.
I am glad I won!!!
(sorry, that was me trying to get you curse me again)
To TIO - I was reading your interactions with D1, Whynot, Frenchie, et al. I have one question for you. Why do you bother? I've been tracking them for almost 3 years now and they continue to wrap themsleves in a tighter and tigher spiral, more and more out of touch with reality with each posting... I have never seen them open to any alternate thoughts. They are right, everybody else is wrong everytime. Facts mean nothing to them. They don't even see them. They just come up with their own facts. They are just ranting, highly biased, confused, often times stupid, many times ignorant and typically mean (except for Whynot who doesnt take himself to seriously, and sometimes - when she isn't drowning in her own pity - Frenchy who deep down seems to have a soft heart) people.
To Mandora - Have you read "The Master Wu Li Dancers"? It is a nice synposis of physics which, with all due respect, I prefer over anthropology. I have high regard for anthropology but beleive that it is trumped by physics. Bottom Line: the phyicists say there are 3 viable explanations for existence and one of those is "intelligent creation". Check it out.
Q
The Theory of Evolution is fancy talk for - things change. I buy that aspect of evolution. DeArchy Thompson has a fine book on the topic.
BUT - explain to me how something evolved from nothing (the first evolution) and then I'll buy that evolution is how it all started...
Q
Anonymous: (or Q)
" I was reading your interactions with D1, Whynot, Frenchie, et al. I have one question for you. Why do you bother?"
I was invited to be a "civil" voice for the right and I thought I would give it a shot.
" I have never seen them open to any alternate thoughts. They are right, everybody else is wrong everytime."
That's why they are the "left". I admit I certainly have been left with this impression. My understanding was they wanted a "right" perspective. Having full knowledge that they are not going to see things from my view and vice versa. I am open to reasonable and mutually respecatable dialogue for the sake of at least trying to understand (not agree) why they think the way they do.
"They are just ranting, highly biased, confused, often times stupid, many times ignorant and typically mean (except for Whynot who doesnt take himself to seriously, and sometimes - when she isn't drowning in her own pity - Frenchy who deep down seems to have a soft heart) people."
On the one hand I am sure they would say the same about a "righty". (Actually some of them do all the time.) So far I have been recieved reasonably ....OK. I would say your statement most definetly would apply to D1. Although I would not take it as far as referring to someone as stupid but more stubborn and hard headed in his thinking and absolutely closed off to any type of "mature" and considerate dialgoue. He is clearly disrespectful of anyone he does not agree with.
Aside from Mandora, WhyNot and Frenchie gave me the warmest welcomes. I agree that WhyNot does not take himself so seriously. Him I can have a good discussion with on a respecatable level.
I look at this way...I will always do my best to take the high road and sometimes that may mean conceding in areas where I realise I was wrong,(and no I do not see them do that, or say things like "I understand you better now") doing my best to present my side of things and clear up any misunderstandings. This is mature dialect. If I do not see it coming from the other side I will not stoop to name calling and back biting I will simply walk and leave them to their own.
I guess I will soon find out if they mean it when they say they want to have "civil" discussion or were they just saying that so they can devour me and go back to saying all "righty's" are the same. At this point, so far, I have only put D1 in this catergory although I sincerely hope he comes around. The rest are still on "prohbation" with me. (except Mandora cause she is my bloggin buddy, so she's a "full patch" in my books)**biker terminology:)
The one area I am getting weary with is all the Christian bashing. I may not agree with "left" philosophy but I will not berate and slam them for it. I will respect their views, beliefs, and difference's of opinion (even though I agree with you, I think some of the things said are "way out there") On the one hand I am given an impression that they want mutual world peace and respect for fellow human beings. This would include respect towards differing views/beliefs (not acceptance) and this requires a word I often hear from "their" side and that being TOLERANCE. So far I have seen very little of that with, as you say, those who disagree. I do not see them as respectable towards those who do share a faith. Again, except Mandora and frenchie. Often the bad seeds (terrorists, radical extremists, pedophile priests, etc) are their rational (or platform) for lumping everyone of a certain faith together and running them into the ground. I do not think they realise when I read some of the "garbage" put forth about my own faith (not necessarily directed at me personally) how much tolerance and patience I am exercising. If it continues on a grand scale I will fade out quietly and leave them to their own. For now I am just applying the scriptures:
"Come now and let us reason together." says the LORD ~ Isaiah 1:18
" the phyicists say there are 3 viable explanations for existence and one of those is "intelligent creation".
Or intelligent design. I just heard another biochemist on the George Norrie show last night say that although he was not a "religious" person himself only responsible science MUST consider all theories and this includes intelligent design. He stated that often science is stumped and the "natural" has no explantion which is why as scientisit they must consider other theories just as valid in their search for origins.
" explain to me how something evolved from nothing (the first evolution) and then I'll buy that evolution is how it all started..."
The science is losing ground on this one as well. If you will recall it has often been theorised that primitive earth was covered with pools of chemicals and had an atmosphere that was conducive to the formation of life. This "primordial or prebiotic soup" recieved it's energy supply from lightning and over a period of billions(no science cannot prove the timeline this is speculation at best) of years the chemicals somehow linked together simple life formed and evolution took over from there.
This theory was tested in an expeiriment by Professor Stanley Miller of Chicago University. In his "landmark" expeiriment ( believe it took place in the 1930's) he recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth in a labratory and shot electricity thru it to simulate the effects of lightning. He found that amino acids (building blocks for life) were in fact created. BUT....
There was a major problem that invalidated this expeiriment. First of all there was no real proof that earth's early atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Which miller used in conducting his expeiriment.The theory was based on physical chemistry. The goal was to achieve a chemical reaction that would be favourable (ie: the expeiriemnt was "stacked" to achieve desired rsults) and so it was "PROPOSED" that the atmosphere was rich in those gases.Yet gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide were left out of the expeiriment. Why would that be? Because with those inert gases there would be no reaction.
Here comes the wrench in the works...since 1980 NASA scientists have shown that primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen! Instead it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. With that mixture you cannot achieve the same expeirimental results. IE: Life did not come from "soup"!
Interesting huh?
Thanks for stopping in Q.
TIO,
When I first started with the aforemention crew I was invited in much the same way and had the same intentions as you. Frenchie was begging for some input from Americans and from the right.
Yet, no counter thought that I presented was ever even acknowledged (except by Whynot) as being possible - not one. Zero. I do not recall Frenchie ever offering any support.
In addition, there were many personal attacks directed at me. And, I was never defended by one participant. I do not recall any comments toward others about tolerance. I only recall being told that I need to be tolerant. I was being intolerant whenever I didn't agree with them. In addition, if I slipped into their mode the attacks came from all angles. I stopped when Frenchie said, and I paraphrase "I don't care what you or any other American says and I don't really want your input any more." That is when I checked out.
Anyway good luck to you.
Oh - I was unfair - sort of. Dr. Marco was very approachable, reasonable, and open minded. He even complimented me, but at the time he had his own blog and was not part of their's. Nothing I wrote applies to him.
Concerning evolution - when I said how did something evolve from nothing, what I meant was how did the universe evolve from nothing. Not, how did life come from pools of chemicals? Where did the pools come from? Where did the planets come from? etc.
You should read "The Master Wu Li Dancers".
Q
Oh yeah,
It seems I may have unintentionally attacked Mandora. I didn't mean to attack Mandora. Her postings appear to based in reason and do not come across arrogant or offensive.
I was attempting to challenge her logic.
Q
TIO,
I just visited their blog again. What a mistake. What a complete waste of electrons. Their whole blog is a swamp of dispair.
To me tolerance means understanding that all people have weaknesses, all people have differences, and all people have a past that they cannot undo.
Leaders focus on commonalities, strengths, and the future. I know what I'm talking about on this topic. No debate allowed.
Today Frenchie basically says America is gonna get it. America deserves it. Ok, that is leadership. That is in sync with their so called "mission".
I just remembered another thing about their blog. 99% of the content is about America. How about bashing China I says. How about bashing Russia I says. How about all of the Arabic nations says I.
I'll tell you why it is 99% about the USA. Their mission should be "We Hate America, and Christians, and Republicans, and business people and we take every opportunity do express our hatred."
This will sour my sole for days, weeks...
Q
Q -
I didn't take offence. I'm not a crazy... I like rational debate. Questioning the ideas of others is important and should be incouraged. If someone can show me that my logic is wrong, I'm always open to it - BUT they have to make a strong case. I'm not easily swayed. That said, I'm open to the idea of an intelligent creator - I'm not an atheist, contrary to what people assume about me.
I personally would suggest that evolution is scientifically sound and valid. That doesn't mean that I don't have faith in an afterlife, or that I don't think that there is a divine hand in the world. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Intolerant - What science though are you suggesting? Because simply saying 'god created the universe' isn't science. This is where you lose me... I'm not just 'defending' evolution as you say because I'm not an atheist. God (or some deity or higher force) may very well have created everything... BUT you havn't shown me any SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports this. You just poked holes (or tried to!) :) in evolution. THATS what I'm saying. If you want to suggest creationism as a valid view point, I'm open to that. It's not something that I'm against in principle, but it's faith. What I HAVE a problem with is when it's somehow disguised as science. Show me the science that you say supports you! (not just what you showed me that refutes evolution - because again, the two are not causally linked) I'm actually interested.
ps - you SO didn't win. I Won. So there.
Take that.
*sticks tongue out*
pps - I've always had a problem with the whole 'life began because it did, and we said so' explanation. I don't for a second buy any of the nonsense that science suggests.
BUT - the Christian explanation doesn't make much more sense either. How did God come into being? He didn't, He was always there. Umm... sorry, I don't buy this either. I don't think anyone has the answers, and I don't think we ever will.
Q:
" I was being intolerant whenever I didn't agree with them."
Now you know where I get my name from. Not from "them" directly but "radical" leftwing, extremists who can only say tolerance, they just would not know how to put it into practise if it slapped them real hard upside the head.
"Oh - I was unfair - sort of."
I find the "left" does not know how to say that. (except you Mandora cause I know that you are reading this :)))LOL)
"Concerning evolution - when I said how did something evolve from nothing, what I meant was how did the universe evolve from nothing. Not, how did life come from pools of chemicals? Where did the pools come from? Where did the planets come from? etc."
OOOPS! My mistake I misunderstood. My answer is God.
You should read "The Master Wu Li Dancers".
Who is the author? I will check it out.
"I just remembered another thing about their blog. 99% of the content is about America. How about bashing China I says. How about bashing Russia I says. How about all of the Arabic nations says I."
I am one Canadian who does not share in the anti-American attitudes. I've got your back on this one. I know that if our country ever expeirenced a 9/11 ( and I think only a Canadian fool would rule it out) you guys would be there in heartbeat to back us. As a Canadian I am sick and tired, fed up, and disgusted by some of the anti-American attitudes these days. You are my neighbour not my enemy. Terrorism is my enemy (whether I like it or not.)
"Their mission should be "We Hate America, and Christians, and Republicans, and business people and we take every opportunity do express our hatred."
I am sure I will find out. I do pick and choose which debates I get involved in but I will call them on this in a "mature" manner. If I get slammed for that then they are going to have to eventually ask themselves why they keep inviting the "right" into the fold and they keep leaving.
Do you have a blog yourself or do you just surf around?
Hope you will continue to visit.
Mandora:
" Because simply saying 'god created the universe' isn't science."
I do not recall saying this during the debate. Even though it is true! :P
" BUT you havn't shown me any SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports this. You just poked holes (or tried to!) :) in evolution. THATS what I'm saying. If you want to suggest creationism as a valid view point, I'm open to that. It's not something that I'm against in principle, but it's faith. What I HAVE a problem with is when it's somehow disguised as science. Show me the science that you say supports you! (not just what you showed me that refutes evolution - because again, the two are not causally linked) I'm actually interested."
OK. You actually got me on something here. To an extent. You are right, although the science DOES SO poke holes in evolution. (Actually it destroys the entire premise of it) It still does not "prove" the existence of God. I get what your saying now. However, that being said, whether it be evolution or Intelligent Design both are recognised as theories and therefore responsible science MUST consider ALL possibilities. That would include the possibility of a Creator. (would so uh huh!)
" you SO didn't win. I Won. So there."
My science disproves your imagination....I mean theory on that note, I did so win.
*sticking tongue out even further*
" How did God come into being? He didn't, He was always there. Umm... sorry, I don't buy this either. I don't think anyone has the answers, and I don't think we ever will."
If you don't buy it then He could not be God because "something" else would have had to have brought Him into being. And that would then make that entity God. You are correct that noone, on earth anyway, has the answers. We are fallible human beings with finite minds. God, for His own soverign reasons, has intentionally not allowed the human race to grasp this concept. If one recognises that God is the supreme being then we need to know that although we do not have all the answers He does and He will reveal them to us in the next life. In the mean time it is about "faith". That is why I do not actually require scientific evidence of Him. His fingerprints are all over creation.
"From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God."
Romans 1:20
There, I just gave you the smallest sermon ever!
"If you don't buy it then He could not be God because "something" else would have had to have brought Him into being. And that would then make that entity God."
You're right on that count, that's why I don't believe in the Christian idea of God. Too many unanswered questions for my poor little science brain. I believe that there's something 'bigger' than us, but that's more from a feeling than any real 'proof' and so I can't strongly say that I BELIEVE any one thing, because I dont' have any answers... if that makes sense....
I found this quote today, it seems fitting. :)
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
- Albert Einstein
Ahhhh the great Albert. I love it when you "evolutionist" types qoute great "Christian" men of science. I believe God was the only thing Albert never required any evidence for.
" Too many unanswered questions for my poor little science brain."
I am sure you have heard the term "God the Father"? Well, God works just like a parent in that respect. It's not there is no answer because there is. For our own good He will not permit us to know it for now.
Although we do not understand that in the here and now. It will all make sense in the everafter. I am quite sure there were things in your childhood that your parents kept from you because, in their best judgement, they did not benefit you knowing at that particular time. They may have done you more harm then good.
IE: Telling you about the "birds and the bees" at a very young age (like say 5) could be a little to traumatic at such a young age. TMI as they say. Of course to late in life could also result in child bearing long before your done being a kid yourself.
God is all about timing. His own of course. But know this...He is never early and He is never late, He is always right on time. One day all the answers will be laid bare before us.
I do believe part of this is a test of our(the Christian's that is) faith. God says that He wants us to except Him unconditionally the same way He wants to embrace us. Imagine for yourself, if you can, that your own children( I know you do not have any yet) were constantly demanding evidence of you and your love and you keep responding "I just told you I do, is that not enough?" "I made this whole playground for you(earth) and you constantly try to explain it away." Just believe. Ya get where I am coming from?
Often people want evidence. It is right in front of us and we(humans) refuse to acknowledge it. We tend to judge by our own standards which our pretty flawed, arrogant, and in constant need of correction.
OK I am done babbling for now. I must be overtired from these pesky nightshifts
I totally understand the idea of faith. Which is what you're describing. I'm not saying I don't have any. BUT I also don't have blind faith in what someone else has told me to believe. I believe that there is a god, but perhaps not the Christian idea. Who knows.... I think any God worth his salt would be happy with the amount of faith that I have. I have a healthy dose of skepticism for what PEOPLE say about God, regardless of whether I thin he/she/it is real.
Mandora:
" BUT I also don't have blind faith in what someone else has told me to believe."
Although God requires blind faith in Him it is also good to analyse what others are saying. The other angle to consider as well is that God may have sent the individual into your path to share about Him.
" I have a healthy dose of skepticism for what PEOPLE say about God, regardless of whether I thin he/she/it is real."
I do too! Whenever I read a book written by a Christian author I do not take it at face value just because he/she is a Christian. I consider what they have written about and then see if it falls in line with what the Bible teaches.
But again, the other side of the equation, sometimes God has sent those "people" you just may not know it. He has a kazillion different ways of trying to get our attention.
Mandora and TIO,
I'm an idiot. The book is "Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Zukav. Apologies. I'm not good are remembering names, dates, detail data, or titles. I remember thoughts - concepts.
Here are the 3 possible explanations for existence according to physicists that used scientific experiments to draw their conclusions:
1. Superluminal connections (ESP)
2. Many worlds theory
3. Superdeterminism - fancy word for intelligent design
The book does a heck of a job explaining the theories and the scientific experiments that proved or eliminated theories including those of Planck, Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger, Broglie, Pauli, Born, Heisenberg, Michelson-Morley, FitzGerald, Lorentz, Feynman, Yukawa, Neumann, Finkelstein, Bell, Bohm, and Kali.
Bottom Line - the limitations of Newton's theories have been known for almost 100 years, yet the West still teaches and aspires to Newtonian thinking.
So Mandora, no I didn't provide any science. It is in the book.
Q
TIO,
I do not have a blog. I did, but it was crummy.
According to most liberal bloggers I'm a neocon. 20 years ago I was considered a moderate. Funny. My positions are the same. What changed? Maybe it was liberals.
Since I'm such a fascist I was quickly bored with conservative blogs. I visited liberal blogs and thought - hey they are willing to share their rationale. Maybe I'll learn something. I did. They do not understand life.
They think that people are as concerned about others as much as they are themselves - this is twilight zone material.
People are only concerned about others as much as themselves when it is family (many adults these days don't even care about their own families), they are completely desperate, or they are completely secure. Bill Gates gave billions to charity, after he was worth about 50 billion. How generous.
I on the other hand will never see much money but I am forced to give about 25% of my gross income each year via taxes to social programs - even though I'll have to work my whole life.
I support about 50% of the tax based social programs because I believe that if we don't support those that need help our society will collapse (bad for me - invisible hand - btw, this is what Joe Kennedy taught his boys. Read his book.).
Another 10% goes to church and local charities because I believe in helping children (with crappy parents), elderly (that didn't prepare for their own future and have crappy adult children), and people with physical and mental limitations. Though it is hard for me to aid people that neglected or abused their health - drugs!
I think the refusal to believe in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is the reason so many far-left liberals are confused.
Since they refuse to accept selfishness and fear (motivators behind the invisible hand) they don't understand that without a military Americans would still have a king, or would be speaking French, Spanish, German, Japanese, or Spanish.
They don't understand what real poverty is - I do. I live 2 hours from Mexico.
They think I owe something to Blacks because I'm White. You see, Whites abused Blacks before I was born. It doesn't matter that there is no record that any of my ancestors ever owned a slave. I'm White. I'm bad. I owe.
They think I should have to give up my guns (even though after 45 years of shooting and gun ownership I've never mis-used a gun). Why, because they don't want guns. My rights really aren't a factor. They think the police can protect me - roflmao!
They think health care is a God given right - oppps - make that just a human given right. I don't see health care anywhere in the Bill Of Rights. Maybe its in the US Constitution? Kidding...
If enough people can't afford cars or fuel will free (liberal for somebody else pays for it) transportation become a right?
They think hunting is bad. Why? Because it is cruel to shoot a deer, quail, dove, etc. Good logic - my gun shot kills them in seconds (if not instantly) and it is cruel, but it isn't cruel for coyotes to eat them alive, or for them to starve to death over a period of weeks/months.
They think it is wrong to execute a killer (I grant that some innocent people have been executed wrongly and I happen to oppose the death penalty), but abortion isn't wrong. What is the logic here?
To me everybody sees the same needs: security, health, freedom, food, clothing, shelter... The disagreement comes in how to deal with each of these problems.
I don't believe that blindly trusting others or sacrificing our advantages will be returned in kind. Okay, maybe it will, but to find out I have to risk myself, my wife, my children, and my grand children in a global, social experiment. Crap on that.
Let's look back a little. We've been doing that in the US since 1965 and now every city in the US has death zones. I remember when you could stop anywhere in New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta, Austin, and Dallas and get help. Now - if you have a flat tire in major portions of any of those cities your life is in danger. Let's not even talk about Chicago, New York, Wash D.C., Los Angeles, etc.
Nope, I'm willing to help. But there are big limits. We are going to have to meet real close to the middle.
I know how to do that by the way. It is called leadership 101.
Leaders:
1. look to the future
2. focus on commonalities
3. focus on abilities
Snipers:
1. keep bringing up the past
2. focus on diffences
3. focus on flaws
Look at the content of Porquois Pas and tell me what you see.
Q
Q,
" My positions are the same. What changed? Maybe it was liberals."
I chuckled at this. Liberals do not concieve "solid structure" and ideals. If they want to know what they think that day, they take a poll. If their minds change (which is constant) they call themselves "progressive" I call them "confused"
"Snipers:
1. keep bringing up the past
2. focus on diffences
3. focus on flaws
Look at the content of Porquois Pas and tell me what you see."
I thought it was obvious? Typical Liberal left-wing ideology.
Thanks for the good read. I was not sure I needed to respond to all of it but with that much on the plate I go back to my original question, why don't you have a blog?
You have alot to put out there. If you decide to I will gladly link you.
First - as a 'liberal' (I hate this term, I'm not a liberal in the political sense- I hate the government and I think it's only job is to screw the majority - no matter what party you're talking about) I take offence to your generalizations. Just like not all conservatives are facist assholes, not all liberals are granola eating tree huggers. (although, I might be... I'm definitly borderline) But, a lot of what you said, I agree with, and I'm a 'liberal'... where does that put me? Or you?
"Since they refuse to accept selfishness and fear (motivators behind the invisible hand) they don't understand that without a military Americans would still have a king, or would be speaking French, Spanish, German, Japanese, or Spanish."
The idea of basic human selfishness is something that I've debated with MANY liberal/leftwing/progressive folks. I too think it's ridiculous to suggest that people will give a shit about anyone other than those they immediatly care for. It's human nature (a term that social science HATES by the way) to be selfish. How do you think we EVOLVED (ha ha ha - sorry, had to) to the point we are at today? The strongest survive and all that.... It's why socialism only works on paper. Some asshole will inevitably bunk it up with selfishness.
"They don't understand what real poverty is - I do. I live 2 hours from Mexico."
This also is a sore spot of mine. I may not understand 'third world' level poverty, but I've lived (and AM living, I might add) at HALF the income that the government considers to be the limit for basic necessities (ie, the poverty line is $17 000 where I live, I made $8000 this year). I cannot stand when yuppie little middle-class white kids try to tell me that we have to 'do more to improve social programs' I have news for them - they don't work. We do need a better social safety net, that's true - but it aint gonna come from the government, and it aint gonna come from think-tanks and yuppies driving volvos. Live in a house where you have to feed the mice just to keep them from eating YOU - then talk to me about how you want to help people, and how I should pay more taxes to a government that didn't do shit when I was in need. Fuck Bill Gates and his charity bullshit - donate it to the people who are starving in your own country, don't donate computers... you can't EAT a computer.
"They think I should have to give up my guns (even though after 45 years of shooting and gun ownership I've never mis-used a gun). Why, because they don't want guns. My rights really aren't a factor. They think the police can protect me - roflmao!"
I've lived in the ghetto, and believe me, knowing that the neighbour below me had a gun, and would be at my door in a second to help me out if something should happen was mighty reassuring. Especially when the cops don't tend to get 'involved in disputes' in the poor areas of town. Let the poor people shoot each other, less money to pay out for welfare.
"They think hunting is bad. Why? Because it is cruel to shoot a deer, quail, dove, etc. Good logic - my gun shot kills them in seconds (if not instantly) and it is cruel, but it isn't cruel for coyotes to eat them alive, or for them to starve to death over a period of weeks/months."
This is non-sense. If you eat factory farmed meat, you're doing a lot worse to a lot more animals. Go vegan, or shut up about it. And besides, moose tastes good.
So, I guess what I'm saying is - you guys can SAY that liberals are all nutjobs, who don't listen, etc etc, but I'm a liberal, and I'm dialoguing with you.... I'm even AGREEING on occassion..... so, I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements.
Mandora:
"but I'm a liberal"
You told me in an earlier thread that you were communist? Now you got me all confused!!!
" I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements."
Neither do I and yet we ALL still do it from time to time. Just try being a Christian and you will know all to well what that is all about.
And I very much appreciate your input (as Always) and I am aware that on occasion we do in fact find ourselves in agreement. Twice now isn't it? :)))LOL
Mandora,
I don't know what say really. The liberal label doesn't really fit you. The Neo-con label doesn't really fit me. Maybe we are anomalies. I can tell you that blogs on both extremes worry me.
I think government is something that should be minimized. An American founder said "government is a necessary evil".
I think taxes are a necessary evil. The extreme poor need help - especially elderly and children. I let my emotions take over here - very rare for me.
I'm a rare Texan against the death penalty. I don't like the "state" killing a person for not fitting in with the state's rules. I use to support abortion, but thought that it was an illogical position when paired with my anti-death-penalty position. I think this excludes me from pure liberal or pure conservative.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my rather long post.
Q
Q,
I think you touched on some important stuff there:
"I don't know what say really. The liberal label doesn't really fit you. The Neo-con label doesn't really fit me. Maybe we are anomalies. I can tell you that blogs on both extremes worry me."
I think anyone who takes an extreme opinion on ANYTHING is dangerous.... if you're an extremist, you can't be open to new ideas. Those people scare me. You're right, the 'liberal' label doesn't fit me, because I don't follow along with what I'm SUPPOSED to think/say/do just because I fall into some umbrella category of 'liberal'. I don't define myself by those sorts of labels that only control your ability to be an individual. I define myself as compassionate and caring (something a lot of those so called liberals are NOT - which frustrates me) and I try my best to make sure the world is better when I leave it than it was when I came in.
"I think taxes are a necessary evil. The extreme poor need help - especially elderly and children. I let my emotions take over here - very rare for me."
I too get VERY emotional and usually angry where poverty is concerned. Having lived in the north american version of extreme poverty for several years, I get frustrated when other Canadians rant about how great our social safety net is. I could tell you many a story, but, sufice it to say, those who really need help don't get it.
TIO,
I am NOT a communist... where did that come from? I often joke that rightwingers call me a commie because I believe that everyone should have the right to not live in extreme poverty (ie - we should share our resources), and that those that have more than they need should share with those less fortunate... but no, not a communist. Communism looks good on paper, but as I said up there somewhere, people are naturally self interested. Communism will never work because of that simple fact.
Mandora:
"I am NOT a communist... where did that come from?"
OOPS! My boo boo, sorry :(
I went back to the comment thread (Monday, January 16, 2006
Desperate times call for desperate measures (very desperate!) I "thought" you had said that but all you did was make mention of a communist party.
So that is where that came from... A mental block or subliminal thoughts of a lefty? (cue twilight zone theme)
Next time, be careful who you're calling a commie - Harper might start rounding us lefties up and shipping us to 're-education camps' or something!
For the record, I am NOT a communist. (hear that government spy agents?? See, nothing to be concerned with here)
;)
"This also is a sore spot of mine. I may not understand 'third world' level poverty, but I've lived (and AM living, I might add) at HALF the income that the government considers to be the limit for basic necessities (ie, the poverty line is $17 000 where I live, I made $8000 this year). I cannot stand when yuppie little middle-class white kids try to tell me that we have to 'do more to improve social programs' I have news for them - they don't work. We do need a better social safety net, that's true - but it aint gonna come from the government, and it aint gonna come from think-tanks and yuppies driving volvos. Live in a house where you have to feed the mice just to keep them from eating YOU - then talk to me about how you want to help people, and how I should pay more taxes to a government that didn't do shit when I was in need. Fuck Bill Gates and his charity bullshit - donate it to the people who are starving in your own country, don't donate computers... you can't EAT a computer."
How does an "anthropologist by training" make only $8000/year? I am guessing here, but my opinion is your someone who has had a lot of formal education. If you made $8000 last year, I'd suggest that it's by choice and not by circumstance. I believe the minimum wage in Ontario is $7.45. This means that you would only have worked 20 hours/week to earn $8000 in one year. I'd bet that it takes the average blue collar worker 2 days to get 20 hours instead of a week. I find it pathetic that people blame the gov't and the 'volvo driving' yuppies for thier 'poverty'. You want a better social net? It's available, it's called employment. Why is it Bill Gates responsibility to feed the world? I love the way people think they're entitled to something because they are worse off than someone else. Did you ever consider that the "yuppy driving white kid" may have been earning $8000/ year at one time too? Two words...personal responsibility.
Actually, I'm a student, not lazy. I worked 3 jobs at the same time during my 3 years between highschool and university so that I could afford to come back to school. I take an overload of courses (36 hours a week of course time, plus homework) plus I work as a teaching assistant for minimum 10 hours a week. Don't talk to me about 'employment'... I work harder and longer hours than most.
I have a great deal of 'personal responsibility' for my circumstances. I wasn't talking about myself when I say we need a better safety net - I get by just fine on $8000 a year. What I have a problem with is people who pretend that there is no problem with poverty in Canada. Clearly you arn't from the north - employment is great - what if there ARE no jobs?? I came from Sault Ste Marie - check out the classified ads - the only jobs are for tradespeople and 15hr/week jobs at tim hortons. Or escorts - I suppose sucking dick is employment.....
And, if you'll read closely, I don't BLAME anyone for poverty. I BLAME the government and volvo driving yuppies for not understanding the problem. You're right, I DO have a lot of formal education, but I also came from a poor background and I havn't lost my roots.
I have been reading this interesting post and subsequent comments. The first problem with intelligent design is that it is flawed from the start. The people who attempted to present it as a theory violated the principle of the scientific method, which is to be unbiased with respect to the conclusion. They already wanted to show that there was a perpetrator for the appearence of man on Earth. They acted more like a prosecutor than a scientist. A scientist does not care about the answer. He or she just weighs the evidence. The second problem is that, assuming that there is no first problem, a conclusion about an intelligent designer will necessarily put the designer in the category of supernatural. So if is supernatural, it is unverifiable using science.
Among the scientific world, there is no such a thing like "belief in evolution". Evolution is a theory, just like the atomic theory or like gravitational theory. It is "a a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena". No belief is seen in a statement like that.
I also followed the thread with respect to Pourquoi Pas. I am not a member of that blog since last week. My style was questioned as "mild" and I was told that I was not blogging according to the "purposes of thhe blog". As far as I know, trying to enlighten people with some historical or scientific posts is part of the battle against ignorance and intolerance in the world, which they claim they are fighting too. I left in good terms and I really appreciated the time I was given the opportunity to blog with them. However, it surprises me the fact that people that probably have never fought besides sitting behind a computer and occasionally donating money to charity organizations and writing posts in left wing blogs can say that I was "mild". I have been in the streets against Fujimori's right wing fascist dictatorship, I have actively helped the Peruvian armed forces in the war against the Shining Path guerrilla and, at the age of 17 I spent weekends in the ER of one of Lima's hospitals taking care of the wounded people from those stupid guerrilla attacks. I agree that there is a lot to do in this world. Education is the key, and not playing the "revolutionary" behind a computer. Nobody will pay more attention than to a kid's temper tantrum. But they are good people and well intentioned.
Marco:
I can't believe it took you so long to respond to this post! LOL.
I figured you would be all over me from the get go. I have always respected and valued your input so I was almost disappointed not to hear from you sooner.
But, hey, better late then never.
Since time has past there has been one area of this post I have reconsidered. Not my faith, of course, but how the write up itself does not necessarily "point" to a creator (I concede that is the faith part of it) but rather continues to heavily scrutinise the "evolution" theory.
Although I am not going to re-write the post, looking back, I feel I should have kept the focus more on the "holes" in the theory itself as that was what I was actually trying to address.
I am very curious and eager to understand something you said:
" The people who attempted to present it as a theory violated the principle of the scientific method, which is to be unbiased with respect to the conclusion. They already wanted to show that there was a perpetrator for the appearence of man on Earth."
While I do understand what you are saying with regards to someone who comes at it with an established belief in a deity, but what about scientists, biochemists, biologists, researchers, etc. who hold the same position as yourself but are now, with the very same science questioning the validity of these theories?
This was something I was trying to get across in my post ( maybe it just did not come across as I intended) is that reputable science is being questioned by those who were once it's biggest supporters. These are not "creationists"/IDers and yet many are now not so closed off to the idea or possibilty. Are these individuals not exercising responsible science? From what I understand they are taking notice that original theories are no longer scientifically valid and are looking at other possible alternatives.
My undersatnding of science is that it must be "open" to ALL possibilities. That would include Intelligent Design. Although you and I would dispute that point forever.
It was good to hear from you again Marco. I love the debate on this topic.
Regarding your not so "mild" history...I was very intrigued by your story. In my opinion you have much to contribute.
Re: Pourqouis Pas.
" As far as I know, trying to enlighten people with some historical or scientific posts is part of the battle against ignorance and intolerance in the world, which they claim they are fighting too."
I am not sure , with them, if they are really fighting anything. I found they would write really good post's (although I did not agree with all) and then just gripe, whine, and complain. If any dared to disagree with them they were all over them. And not in a very nice way. Alot of sarcasm and condescending tones.
I was disappointed in this as they had invited me over for a "different" perspective yet displayed everything that they say they are against. They were "intolerant" of my Christian perspective (even though they wanted it, or so I thought) by making some very deraguatory and "ignorant" remarks regarding my faith as well as some postings that I felt were just way out of line for those who "claim" to want to "end" ignorance and intolerance. You cannot achieve that by displaying the qualities you say you are opposed to.
They have a tendency to write about some good topics for discussion and then completely draw away the focus with their backbiting. I, personally, found them incapable of civil discourse. This is why they achieve nothing in their "cause". In fact you said it best:
" I agree that there is a lot to do in this world. Education is the key, and not playing the "revolutionary" behind a computer."
I left the site after reading a complete thread/dialogue where they just went way off topic (again) and were calling each other some pretty harsh names. I "stepped" in and pointed out some behavourial attitudes that they were displaying with one another. (childish and immature)
They all turned on me at that point. I concluded that this was not a place where one is welcome unless you completely agree with everything they say. If these people actually ran the world, as rough as it is right now, it would be alot worse.
I suspect they will never gain more contributing writers and will continue to keep within their own little circle accomplishing absolutley nothing.
Good to hear from you. I'll be sure to post something in the near future dispelling the "primordial soup" theory. :)
I have not been visiting blogs in a consistent basis for the past month. Things can get very busy for me.
It is true, we will dispute forever the issue if ID is or is not science. As I said, explaining something outside nature is not the role of science.
Some people just "wish" that we humans are not the product of evolution from a lesser complex species. My advise to religious people is that they should not fear that idea. Evolution is just a tool that assures survival. If there is a nuclear war, the surviving humans might probably need to evolve into something else which is more resistant to radiation, or we could evolve into underground creatures with no eyes and greatly developed sense of smell.
Marco:
"Some people just "wish" that we humans are not the product of evolution from a lesser complex species. My advise to religious people is that they should not fear that idea."
I had a chuckle when I read this. Because I would say the same thing from the opposite perspective.
I would be suggesting that people "wish" (like evolutionists) we were not the product of a Creator and that they should learn to consider exploring outside the box. Responsible science is obligated to "consider" all possibilities. And just like you said, my advice to the "evolutionist" (as opposed to the religious) as well would be not to be afraid of the ID idea.
Anyway, I just found it amusing how we could both make almost an identical statement and yet the intentions are such extreme opposite's.
As a Christian I certainly do not fear the idea (evolution). I was not a Christian when they taught it to me in school. I considered the science and have followed it ever since. I have (just to be honest) always found it to be a ridiculous theory ( I mean no disrespect). I was insulted that I was being compared to monkeys and the whole "if we're monkeys why are they still around today?" Yet I know a few Christians who believe God used evolution for creation. I do not accept that because the theory's questions far outweigh the answers. And as I have stated, it is becoming more and more scrutinised by some of it's biggest supporters.
But I am still looking for some insight here to something I have stated before (on other sites as well) and I am not getting any response to it which has left me somewhat perplexed?! It goes back to what I said earlier in the thread and that being:
"reputable science is being questioned by those who were once it's biggest supporters."
What about some of the credible evolution supporters who are seriously questioning the validity of the theory based on new scientific findings that continue to "poke more holes" in it? Do they now lose credibiity for suggesting that there are in fact other alternatives to consider? And that ID "may" be one of them?
I do not mean to sound like a broken record here because I completely understand your position when you speak about ID being a theory that is based outside of science (I disagree to a certain extent) but when science cannot find an explanation for something then is it not obligated to consider other and all "possibilities" outside of nature? Is this not responsible science?
I think I know your answer on the last question. Science is a road to discovery and there many things out there that are simply to complex for science to comprehend. Which is why I feel it is OK for "reputable/credible" science to say/suggest that because there are things we may never find an answer too we must then consider the alternative. That being "outside" forces "may" have had a hand in this.
Like Life itsef, I do not believe we "just live it". Everything has purpose and meaning. I see it even in the atheist who still holds political/human rights beliefs. They are passionate for them as well.
Morality is just another concept to indicate a Higher being with standards that we we must adhere to. Where does conviction come in (guilty conscience)? If evolution is to be believed then according to prominent evolutionist William Provine Cornell University there are 5 inescable implications:
1.)There is no evidence for God, therefore,
2.)there is no life to look forward to after death, therefore,
3.) there is no foundation for right or wrong (moral reletavism) therefore,
4.) there is no meaning (or purpose) for life (how sad) therefore,
5.) people really do not have free will. In other words, how you can choose right from wrong where there is no foundation for it. Free will to "choose" does not exist because there is no determining factor for making a right decision.
If sex is "just another part of nature" then why does a man become filled with rage at the betrayal of his spouse being unfaithful? If we are to apply a "naturalist" view it should then be seen as just a natural act and we should not really care who is "humping" our honey. The bottom line is we do and that is irrefutable in itself.
So many different angles. But I have blogged enough for now.
On a completely off topic note, I have been wanting to ask you what exactly Nephrology is? What do you do as a physcian or should I ask what your speciality is?
"I had a chuckle when I read this. Because I would say the same thing from the opposite perspective."
The opposite perspective does not exist because a scientific atheist, does not have a "wish" towards a non-existence of a god. He or she analyzes the world from a rational perspective and the idea of a superior/supernatural being does not cross his or her mind
2.)there is no life to look forward to after death, therefore,
I consider that a selfish statement. I think we should look forward to persist throughout the memory of people. Life is a cycle and we are just part of it.
3.) there is no foundation for right or wrong (moral reletavism) therefore,
I do not see a problem with what you call moral relativism. I see more problems with moral absolutism. A simple set of basic rules like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is enough for a set of rules. The rest can change as the paradigms of societies change. Take a look at the link for the Universal Declaration in my blog and analyze it
4.) there is no meaning (or purpose) for life (how sad) therefore
I am happier since I switched my goals from "looking for an afterlfe" to "passing on my expereinces to the next generations". I am genuinely not concerned about living more than 70 or 80 years. My purpose is to serve and I hope the people who remember me get something from me.
5.) people really do not have free will. In other words, how you can choose right from wrong where there is no foundation for it. Free will to "choose" does not exist because there is no determining factor for making a right decision.
If there is something like "free will" it must be really very little of it. We are prisoners of our set of genes and the we way we are educated. If we understand this concept and lead towards better educating ourselves, we can master the natural selfishness of our genetic nature and replace it by a more altruistic, but still determined, form of prison.
"reputable science is being questioned by those who were once it's biggest supporters."
In the scientific world evolution is taken as it is, a theory that explains what we see and what we find, just like the atomic theory. You stop being a scientist if you pursue answers outside nature. You can become a metaphysical philosopher, theologian, or whatever, but not a scientist. The scientific method deals with evidence, beyond that, there is faith. The scientists who cross that boundary are really not doing science.
If sex is "just another part of nature" then why does a man become filled with rage at the betrayal of his spouse being unfaithful?
There is a Darwinian answer to that. Put in simple terms, the males gets upset because he feels that all the energy invested in passing on his genes goes towards the genes of "the other" male. In reality it is not a problem of the individual. The unit is the gene. All this is beautifully explained in "The Selfish Gene". There is a link in my blog.
A nephrologist is a kidney specialist I deal with issues like acure renal failure dialysis, hypertension, renal stones (not the surgical aspect), electrolyte balance, acid/base disorders.
Thanks Marco.
I am always fascinated about how you tend to view things. Obviously I am in disagreement with most of what we discuss but I am not one to tell you what you should or should not believe. From my side of things, that is the gift of freewill that God gives us. To choose Him or to choose not to believe in Him. If it is a choice of freewill then the faith one may have in Him is genuine.
I continue to admire your approach on taking the time to explain your views and give me insight. As well as our respective dialect.
I have not been able to find that on many other sites that hold your perceptions. I recently visited one site where an 18 year old evolutionist/atheist wrote a very long and (although I did not agree with it all) a very intelligent article on why he supports evolution and not ID. I was impressed.
But I was put off by his thread when someone responded with some challenging questions and he simply called them an idiot!??
I thought to myself how he just discredited his own article by opening up the "comment" section (thereby leaving an open invitation to respondents) and then calling people "idiots" who did not agree with his perspective. I was very puzzled by that.
Alot of us are not always looking to agree with one another but to understand why the other thinks the way they do. What shapes their perceptions.
So again I thank you for allowing me to hear how and why you see things the way you do by giving me insight.
Your work sounds intriguing. What made you choose this particular area of medical practise say as opposed to a heart specialist? I assume by your education you could have gone into any area of medicine you wanted too. What drew you to "kidneys"?
I ask out of simple curiosity. I find that physcians are passionate about their areas of specialties. I have a couple of friends who are general practioners but they "love" what they do.
The kidneys are the most difficult organ to understand and to manage from the clincal perspective. They involve knowledge of mathematics biochemistry, chemistry, physics as well as the skills of a good clinician. Kidney diseases reflect thorughout the whole body. I always loved what is considered difficult . If you ask physicians what is the most complicated specialty, the most dreaded by training physicians they will answer: nephrology
Thanks again Marco.
If I ever were to meet you in person I think I could sit for hours and just "pick away" at your brain. I don't know if I would be able to grasp everything (probably not) with all the knowledge you have in this area I think it would be a very interesting conversation just the same.
If you haven't already, maybe one day you could write a piece on the intricacies of what you do.
I am thankful that there are people in the world who are gifted and thrive on helping others the way you do.
Wow, I missed all this! How long has this thread been continuing??
Basically, I'll just say: "Yeah! What Marco said!"
Of course you would. That would be agreeing with me and we cannot have that happening on a regualr basis. LOL
My beloved intolerent,
I'm gonna agree with everything you say one day, no matter how crazy I think it is, just to freak you out and mess with your head.
I know you already dream about me and my giant brain running logic circles around you. :) I gotta get in and mess with your mind when you're awake now too!! ;) You'll be begging for mercy...
muah ha ha!!
Mandora, my "Little Ms. can't be wrong" (sigh)
"I'm gonna agree with everything you say one day"
I will be very interested in seeing just which post/topic you choose to "freak" me out on.
I am already aware of the one's I KNOW you disagree with. So catching me "off guard" will be neat trick. I will even wish you luck!
"I know you already dream about me and my giant brain running logic circles around you. :)"
Actually you have distorted the dream a little bit. It was actually your big ego running around me with your face, once again, firmly planted in your pillow, screaming (once again), at the top of your lungs (only in the dream your voice is amplified):
"WHY!!!WHY CAN'T I BEND YOU OH GREAT INTOLERANT ONE!"
And then I really calmly qoute the book of Romans 12:1 "Do not conform to the ways of this world..."
To which you respond:
"ARRRGHHH!! I HATE YOU INTOLERANT ONE, I HATE YOU!!!
To which I respond: "Nah! I don't believe you. In fact, I disagree with that statement!"
and then you just pass out from pure exhaustion and do a face plant into your pillow.
I always wake up giggling after that one. ;)
Ha ha ha ha
'LMCBW'
I can TOO be wrong... it isn't my fault that I rarely am. :)
Again, your humbleness overwhelms me:)
As it should. Bow before me. :)
You know you want to.
Sorry LMCBW.
Your evil Jedi mind tricks won't work with me :p
Great debate here on ID vs Evo.
I occassionally pester whynot and frenchie, (frenchie despises me), and only do it because annoying socialists is almost a religious calling for me.
Great site here TIO.....good luck with the crew at whynots.....
Kender:
Thank you for the kind words. As far as for the whole Pourqouis Pas sight....I have had more intelligent, mature, and respectful debates with a wall. That is as kindley as I can possibly put that statement.
Thanks for stopping by. I hope to see more of you.
Post a Comment