Total posts: 2,768
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I have literally spent the last two pages explaining that you’re not providing an argument. Pointing out that you’re not providing an argument is not really a surprise.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So much hate!
You are of course, demonstrating exactly why I am right far better than any detailed argument I could make.
You're engaging in emotional rants, making unsupported accusations and generally acting spitefully and petulant because someone doesn’t agree with you. You could let your arguments do the talking, you could produce actual evidence, or reasoning. - but you don’t.
Its this largely irrational and emotional approach to argumentation that I find permeates many, though not all, theist attempt to justify their faith and position to others that most atheists have a profound disrespect for - because this sort of bile filled nonsense has no need for respect.
I respect you as a human being, your right to speech, life and to be happy in whatever you want to do - but what you’re talking about is still nonsense and not deserving of respect, which is from a position of logic, rather than hate.
This is why many of us think we’re better than many of you as a matter of argument and world view. I resort to explaining my position, defending it with logic and reason, and are willing to make claims and subsequently defend them coherently.
You on the other hand, simply ramble incoherently and emotionally about how one side is “full of hate” while being the only one truly spitting invective.
I’m sure you will continue to prove me right by either not reading this, or not addressing anything I’ve said - and will simply call me names, as if that has any ability to make what I’m saying any less true.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Sorry, I was a bit too polite. Let me correct.
You are confusing pity with hatred.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think you’re confusing pity with hatred.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Just because you spread your hate with pretty words doesn't make it less hateful. It just means you try to hide it. Shit on a flower is shit on a flower. I see no reason to kill a flower to make others feel better about their own hate.
It seems pretty clear with all your bile and vitriol, that there is literally only one person showing anything like the level of hatred you’re arguing is being shown. That’s you.
Your argument appears to be getting rather silly at this point. Atheists don’t hate theists, I’m fast getting the impression that you simply have no other way of quantifying disagreement than under that emotion. You give the impression that you hate people that disagree with you, and use this to assess the emotional drive of others.
it doesn’t work that way, I’m afraid.
Created:
-->
@janesix
You will not see reason until you are smacked upside the head with it. Your ignorance is understandable though.
I would be happy to see reason: for this, I require the following:
1.) A reasonably detailed explanation of the scenario or process you are asserting that can be validated against the world I can observe.
2.) A list of evidence and observation you feel validate your position.
3.) A basic explanation of obvious counter examples and counter evidence and why you feel these can be discarded.
4.) A basic description of how it is possible to tell your position apart from some made up nonsense, a clear set of predictions and criteria for falsification to at least give the impression you know what the world would look like if you’re wrong.
5.) An ability and willingness to defend your claims with evidence, reason and critical thinking when counter evidence and arguments are presented.
I am still waiting for you to do any of these. What you, and most other theists here do is as follows:
1.) Assert, with little (if any) justification about how you know what you’re saying is true.
2.) Snipe at or dismiss any criticism with as tenuous and short argument as you possibly can.
3.) Vehemently assert that “no one can prove me wrong”, and then restate your initial assertion.
4.) Refuse to answer questions, or walk through your explanation from first principles.
5.) Start up new threads about how unfair it is that Atheists keep posting pesky arguments against your position on religion forums.
As you can see, these lists are somewhat different, with the example you appear to be following being mostly nonsensical.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
She wasn't talking to you, bigot.
She actually was very much talking to me. The clue is in the “@Ramshutu” tag at the top of her reply. This indicates the user she is replying to.
Secondly, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head: you are literally the only individual in this thread spewing bile and hatred. I suspect you are seeing the world, and the actions and motivations of others through the lens of your own intolerance and anger.
You give the impression that the only reason that you claim anyone here hates theists, is because the only prism through which you know to view disagreement is one of dislike and intolerance for the individual themselves.
way to prove my point.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Hate filled bigot spends day "gently" telling theists they are stupid and beneath him wants respect. Nope.
“Flagged”
”what a sack of shit comparison”
”Hate filled bigot”
”you are a bigot and a supremacist”
”you hate freedom”
”idiots”
”you admitted to being a lar”
”start with a lie no reason to read that pile of crap”
Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blameshifting.
Created:
-->
@janesix
If you give me a justified reason why solar energy has anything to do with anything, and that reason holds up to the burden of logical scrutiny and basic evidentiary requirements, and provides a detailed and parsimonious explanation of reality - I will see this “reason”.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Start with a lie no reason to read the pile of crap.
For it to be a lie, you have to know it’s incorrect, and you have to know I know it’s incorrect. Of course as I pointed out, you (and many other theists), simply assert bold claims loudly, and only defend them primarily with your own unwavering ignorance of your own incorrectness.
i know you can neither show the statement is incorrect, nor show I reasonably can presume it to be incorrect. It’s what you did, what Janesix did, and
what Mopac have done in this thread also.
It’s this blind ignorance of how to present your case, your unwillingness to rationalize your point of view - and your self professed unwillingness to even read opposing points of view of their justification: simply casting them aside as if your own distaste makes them wrong - that justifiably makes most atheists here think they are better than you in the context of this type of discussion forum.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheists do hate theists. You think you are better than theists. You are a bigot and a supremacist.
Atheists don’t hate theists. The atheists here that engage in debate - at best - dislike theISM, but hatred is mostly an emotion that is bandied around and resorted to only by Theists such as yourself as if trying to rationalize why atheists don’t buy you’re arguments other than for obvious reasons - that your arguments are terrible.
In terms of discussion, theists here generally require or engage in various degrees of suspension of rationalism and critical thinking- and
rationality in order to perpetuate their belief. Many individuals arguments on this forum - including this very topic - include bold faced assertions, without any supporting argument and defended only with an unwavering inability to accept that the assertion may be wrong.
For this reason, and as Atheists here - broadly speaking - do not simply suspend critical thinking in order to primarily support their worldview, given that this is a debate site that is intended to be a place to champion rationality - in the context of this website, and the context of the comparison being related to argumentation and world view validity: I think it’s a valid position for atheists to be viewing themselves as “superior” to theists in this specific regard.
In the same way it would be right for pro-science individuals to consider themselves superior to anti-backers and conspiracy theorists on a science discussion forum, or actual muscisions would be right to view themselves as superior to those who once played the tambourine at school on a music forum.
Now, don’t take that to mean that we treat theists as inferior people - just that we view your arguments, ability to reason with regards to religion and theISM, and your ability to construct valid and well thought out arguments is inferior, which is the purpose of this site, and thus far notionally true.
For example, you’re probably a nice person, and so are anti-vaxxers and flat earthers. I would consider myself in the context of world view strength and validity - superior to all of those people, but not as a general broad statement.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Most Atheists beleive they are smarter than most theists - especially those on forums like this, because they are. It’s noy universal either way, but when you look at the most prominent theist individuals here, I have a strong suspicion they would not be able to pour water from a boot if the instructions were printed on the sole.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@janesix
Oh awesome, you’ll be happy to provide your alternative explanations for the x ray output Vs size of Cygnus-x, and provide a new theory that supersedes relativity that explains the orbital dynamics around Sagittarius B?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Sucks though it may, and ignoring the wonderful trolling of gruppenführer Greyparrot: this is an argument by anecdote, the statistics (albeit a bit out of date) tell a different story:
6.6% of white people receive scolarships, as opposed to 4.4% of minorities. Whites have a higher amount
of total funding, and a higher representation of recipients and funding than the number of students.
So as a white person, appear to have had more chance of getting a scholarship than your friend - as he’s Latino, you had nearly twice the percentage chance that he had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
bish is actually a time traveling alien who feeds on the souls of Republicans who make Faustian bargains.But definitely a gay time traveling alien who feeds on the souls of Republicans.
Can confirm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Please tell me you sound like Bruce from family guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This is the most pathetic and convoluted attempt I’ve ever seen of a lonely single man trying to solicit dick picks I’ve ever seen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Its still ambiguous, but now it’s ambiguous between “is this guy a skeptical rational thinker”, or “if I ask about his evidence is he going
to start a rant about chemtrails” - based on the two common self-identifying groups of “skeptics”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It blew my mind when I Saw the capitalization - I always thought it was Skeptic Alone for the last 5 years.
Like you needed a friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The evidence of a worldwide is mostly exactly the same as the evidence for a local flood, Except global.
For example:
Flood detritus, rocks and sediment, including unsorted layers of dead animals covering the entire globe. Silt, sediment and water bound mineral penetration of all similar ages layers over the entire globe. Historical evidence of every recorded civilization alive at the time being wiped out, with various ancient cities showing evidence of flooding and water damage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They’re pretty old so a lot may be out of date, but I would strongly recommend them all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Its the complete opposite the monkeys are born with an ability to learn to be afraid of snakes - but I’d they do not learn that fear, they will not be afraid.
It actually makes sense, if you’re afaid of snakes, then you move to place that are no snakes but there are scorpions, you have to evolve to be afraid of scorpions. Evolving to be able to learn to be afraid of things from others is much more beneficial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Its fascinating. There are actual multiple teirs of instinct. Some very basal - like fight or flight - some very high level. What was interesting (it was covered in the book but I’m not sure about the show), was a study with thesis moneys I think, where they taught monkeys to be afraid of snakes by watching videos of monkeys reacting in fear to snakes - but they couldn’t get those monkeys to learn fear of flowers in a similar way.
If you’re interested, Robert Winston also made a series called the Human Mind, and the Human Body. They were all amazing series - the mind especially.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Check out the human instinct: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pfrv4/episodes/guide
A BBC documentary and associated book that goes into a lot of detail about instinct behaviour, and actually cites a lot of nature vs nurture research.
Created:
Posted in:
in most debate tournaments I’ve seen, debates are able to see information about the judges, with paradigm information about what they like to see, and how they render decisions: there are a variety of examples (such as tabroom) that allow debaters to get a feel for what the expectation is from judges they’re assigned, and how they can win a debate.
i get the feeling that something similar can be useful here, especially as I’ve had people basically argue as if being a game theorist is the only legitimate way of judging a debate.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's the story
Of a lovely guy
Who was building up one very lovely site
All of it was beta then
Unlike the old one
he was going to get it right
It's the story
Of a guy named Bsh
Who was busy with three mods of his own
They were all master-
-debaters all together
Yet they were all alone
'Til the one day when the guy met this fellow
And they knew that it was much more than a hunch
That this group must somehow form a website
That's the way we all became the Bishy bunch
The Bishy bunch, the Bishy bunch
That's the way they became the Bishy bunch
Of a lovely guy
Who was building up one very lovely site
All of it was beta then
Unlike the old one
he was going to get it right
It's the story
Of a guy named Bsh
Who was busy with three mods of his own
They were all master-
-debaters all together
Yet they were all alone
'Til the one day when the guy met this fellow
And they knew that it was much more than a hunch
That this group must somehow form a website
That's the way we all became the Bishy bunch
The Bishy bunch, the Bishy bunch
That's the way they became the Bishy bunch
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The live birth question is interesting - but we’ve actually seen the transition evolve in the real world:
Im also not underselling the awesomeness, the awesomeness of evolution is the relative simplicity of the processes and mechanisms at play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Unfortunately, what you did was assert that it’s not small changes - and you did so by using a highly naive interpretation of genetics that simply isn’t true at all - and you seem to be ignoring.
As I’ve pointed out, some major macroevolurionary changes that really just boil down to size and shape - I gave examples and specifics. I’ve explained how organisms develop from the rudimentary hox genes, and have pointed out that most terrestrial vertebrates have almost the same
body plan, and hox genes - and the differences between all the different body plans are in the way embryos develop due to the way these genes are expressed and regulated in the cascading mechanism of development.
As I’ve said, and you don’t seem to grasp - a wing is simply a different expression of the same Genes that grow an arm. Feathers are a different expression of the genes that form scales (and hair) - birds have most certainly acquired differences in how these arms grow, or how the feathers grow - but due to your misunderstanding of how genetics works - to get feathers you won’t have to acquire a brand new feature and some brand new proteins and genes - you have to acquire changes in how existing genes are expressed and regulated - you have to acquire a change that turns on or off a gene at a particular time - which it’s often as simple as point mutations, gene duplication or the effect of transposons - micro changes.
Macro evolution requires a lot of those micro changes, but the only reason you seem to be claiming that there needs to be some new feature or new thing generated in order to produce differences that we mostly know can be ascribed to the hox gene regulatory cascade. This misinterpretation is literally like claiming Wayne Gretzky wasn’t that great because he never won the super bowl.
Your argument fundamentally misunderstands both genetics and how organisms develop, and at this point it seems you’re mostly going out of your way to ignore responding to where your misunderstandings are being corrected by us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Unfortunately, it is neither logical or rational to ignore the last 60 years of scientific research into genetics and embryological development and replace it with your opinion because you neither like, nor accept what the science says.
Embryological development - from a single cell to a grown organism is EXACLTY just lefts and rights. The last 60 years of verifiable science shows that when the organism starts multiplying, a cascade of protein and gene regulation kicks in. Genes and protein production are turned on and off, genes are expressed in greater or lesser amounts as cells multiply, allowing cells to specialize, multiple at different rates or modulates the production of protein to alter the position and shape that the organism grows in.
In terrestrial vertebrates - with a body plan that is generally mostly unchanged since fish - the difference between a wing, a fin and an arm is solely down to the same genes generating the same proteins being turned of and on at different times - in exactly the same way getting to New York is the same as a journey to Washington, just with different combinations of left and right.
You may not like that, and in your naive, and superficial understanding of science that leads you to conclude the are genes for constructing feathers (that’s not how it works), a collection of code for wings that are fundamentally different from arms (again no), or that macro mutations are not simply the same mutations occurring at the start of a cascade of regulation and thus produce a bigger impact than those at the end - but that is the way organisms develop.
Understanding that makes macro evolution easy to understand, as almost every change in terrestrial vertebrates boils down to a change in size and shape which is simply a change in gene regulation - producing more protein in one type of cell at a given time to produce more growth at a given time.
Understanding how life actually works makes understanding evolution as a blind process trivial: no major new structures need to be created, a wing isn’t a brand new collection of traits - a wing can simply be made by a sequential and trivial collection of regulatory changes that simply modify the order and pattern an arm grows. That’s all it is.
You may not like it, and you certainly seem to actually understand it; but that doesn’t require anything magical, it doesn’t require some arbitrarily and subjective interpretation of “information”, but that’s the conclusion to which literally all the evidence points.
You appear to have a fixation with treating individuals traits and differences as unique features and special genes that don’t exist in any way before or after - that is demonstrably not the way this works at alll: the sooner you start appreciating that nuance, the better for all of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
1.) Saying that feathers evolved earlier than birds doesn’t mean that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs, or that there is even any doubt that requires anything to be assumed. Feathers were around earlier than birds, that at this time is relatively uncontraversial and actually substantially bolsters the idea that one evolved from the other due to the commonality of traits. That you think this renders the idea an assumption highlights your lack of understanding of the very process and theory you’re opposing.
2.) Yes - feathers evolved from scales. They are both keratin based growths that start their development in the embryo in very similar ways, based on roughly the same underlying proteins - also the same as nails and hair. They’re all the same building blocks differing in expression. Alligators cannot grow feathers today because it does not have most of that extra expression that changes how these genes are modulated
3.) “Genetic information” is a meaningless term used by creationists to define their way out of being wrong. There are genes, and there is genetic material - we observe this material being mutated, duplicated, and those those duplicates being modified, leading to two different genes when there was one. That’s all evolution really needs, and renders the concept “generic information” either meaninglsss or irrelevant.
4.) Again, there are no wing “genes”, or set of genes or set of “code” that “make a wing” in the way you’re arguing. That you think there is, is a grossly naive interpretation of genetics. An arm and a wing have more or less similar hox genes - the genes that govern overall body plans. When an embryo develops and divides, these have a cascade of gene regulation that govern division, specialization and organization that generates a body plan - it’s like a set of directions - divide, divide, stop, divide, specialize, etc. To make a wing, instead of an arm, particular genes need to be turned off at a given time, or turned on at a given time - exactly the same type of regulation that exists to make an arm - just in different orders.
Every multi celled organism is crammed full of genetic code that turns a particular gene off or on at some specific moment in the developmental cascade, the idea that making a wing requires some special information - is nonsense - it just requires exactly the same stuff that already exists, just applied in a different way at a different time.
Your argument is like saying that to go from your home city to Washington D.C using left, right, forward and backward: but you need to invent a whole new direction to get to New York. Now - New York is still the same lefts and rights - just in a different order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
And again - you’re understanding of the genome is grotesquely naive.
There are no “wing” genes in ANY genome. There are hox genes - and regulation sequences that can regulate or unregulate gene expression that encourages or inhibits cell specialization, growth and division at particular times in the development of the organism. All of those are broadly common to all animals, and very close in all terrestrial vertebrates.
In that respect the genes from an arm and a wing are inherently the same genes and the same things, just with modified regulation and expression of those same genes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Gradulism isn’t being replaced by macromutations, macroevolution doesn’t require macromutaions to be explained: and even if it did - macromutafions exisy and are observable. I’m pointing out this, with examples and an argument - and you havent answered it at any point, you’ve just shifted the goalposts to a different question each time.
Macro evolution doesnt require anything special - just the types of mutation we can see and observe today, and can be explained simply through the effect those mutations have on where they occur. Turning an arm into a bird wing over time is mostly a matter of expression of existing genes over longer periods of time, as it doesn’t require anything new, just a change of what’s already there in ways we know can already happen. Most of what you’re saying really looks like it’s based on some overly simplistic and naive view of genetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It has got to be preferable to the current system. Our system has a lot of room for improvement
Any system of government invariably has a lot of room for improvement: but are elected judges preferable to the current system?
Of course not: Justice is about being fair and reasonable. The moment you have individual judges considering their upcoming election and making decisions less of the merits of the case but what will make a plurality of their voters happy - or worse - contributers, you’ll on your way to making justice meaningless.
You already see that with Tort Law and the activities of the Chamber of Justice to work on election helpful judges.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As an additional point: Macromutations were the basis of Goldschmitts “Hopeful monsters” hypothesis - it was something that was initially used to try and explain macroevolution - but want ever really accepted, and isn’t part of “the scientists” explanation of evolution.
Saying that, I think regulatory and hox gene mutations that occur early in the embryological development of a creature do have parts to play in macro evolution - it can explain some of the phyla level differences in body plans, but IlDiavolo is really failing to grasp the underlying principles - I would very much encourage you to check out the Evo-Devo Acapella science video on the first page, it’s hilarious but also informative!
Created:
Posted in:
Judges thinking about what will help or hinder them being re-elected when rendering verdicts should scare the bejesus out of everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I refuted that with the fact that scientists introduced a new hypothesis, macromutation, which basically states that macroevolution relies on big saltations or changes instead of gradual or small changes.
You asserted, that micro evolution was a different thing to macro evolution: that microevolution was fine because it is properties and
genes that exist in the genome already. You claimed macro evolution is different thing because it required new things and big new traits and changes.
That is ridiculous nonsense. The reality, as I pointed out, is that most of macro evolution that you would consider macro evolution, birds wings, whales, the evolution of amphibian is almost all simply changes in size, and shape, and reuse of things that are already there.
I was explicit with examples, pointing out that the major differences are minimal, even between disparate organisms, and your view of what a trait is, is exceptionally naive: because there is no trait for a wing. The building blocks for a wing are the same as for an arm, and vary almost exclusively in terms of gene expression.
You didn’t “refute” that. What you did. Is you ignored the combined entirety of what I said, and threw in some nonsense claims about Macro mutations. You said they were theoretical, which is made up nonsense: if you’ve seen a few people with Dwarfism, you’ve literally seen Macromutation. You implied that macro evolution depends on this “new hypothesis” - which is made up nonsense, because it doesn’t. You’ve also implied that a macro mutations is not the same type of mutation as a micro mutation - which is made up nonsense demonstrating an utter lack of understanding about the science you are railing against. A macro mutation is simply a micro mutation in a moreuniversal body plan gene that allows one small chance to have a major impact on what an animal looks like.
Many forms of Birth Defects, extra fingers, dwarfism, extra fingers, toes, and weird mutations like extra arms and legs - all macro mutations.
Of course, I pointed all this out: it’s all up there - you’ve just ignored it.
Why you should I answer any of your questions when you are ignoring - literally - every answer given so far?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Not really, what you’ve done is asked a question, I answered, them you asked a different
question.
For example you asked about macro and microevolution, and claimed that big “traits” don’t exist in the DNA and so can’t evolve. I pointed out that you’re thinking about traits incorrectly, that changes normally involve simply making things bigger and smaller - which allows you to cover antelope to whale transitions and many other jumps.
No real answer to that, instead you implied that this requires animals to have substantially plastic genomes and body plan.
I point out that it doesn’t. As they don’t.
No real answer to that either.
Instead you asked ANOTHER question about micro and macro mutations, which I pointed out you fundamentally don’t seem to understand - the micro and macro deacrobe the EFFECT not the mutation itself.
No answer to that either - worse you don’t even seem to have read my reply either, asserting that I am talking about something that I obviously am not talking about had you read my post.
Instead of answering anything in that post, you’ve now gone onto ask YET ANOTHER question and demanded to see a macromutafion producing a new species.
Not only is none of that an answer to what I said, it’s not even something I specifically claimed at any point
So, can I ask why you’re ignoring everything I said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Sure, does that hat mean you are conceding every response you’ve ignored thus far?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Through your inability to defend your position, I humbly accept your apology, and implicit acknowledgement that you’re wrong.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, let’s pretend you didn’t contradict yourself within the space of three sentences!
Being a Trump supporter must be so much easier for you when reality is optional!
Created:
-->
@Grugore
... and you’re conceding the other three paragraphs of my response that you ignored?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Actually you either don’t understand, or you literally have not read what I said. The latter would not surprise me, as you’ve gone multiple posts now where you have ignored the key point.
I literally explained the difference, with a specific example, of what a micro and macro mutation are - they are the same thing in different places that present wildly different effects.
So yes, I understand what it is - I literally explained what it is. Why are you replying to me when you’re not even reading what I’ve said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don’t think you understand what a micro and macro mutation actually are.
You're arguing as if macro mutations are large genomic changes. They’re not.
If you have a mutation in the gene for eye colour, you may have blue eyes. If you have the same mutation in a Hox gene, you’ll not develop with legs.
Micro and Macro don’t describe the substance of the mutation itself, but the impact they have on the phenotype. Even were they not, it’s doesn’t matter, as macro mutations definitely do exist, and are observed repeatedly.
So I really don’t get what you’re trying to say: are you trying to say that the thing we can objectively see today doesn’t exist? Or are you simply misunderstanding how genetics work for the second time in this thread.
I’m assuming, once again, that as you’re not really defending the initial claim at all - you’ve conceded the point?
Created:
...the 12 Russian intelligence agents he indicted...
...can't find a SINGLE Russian to pin anything on...
What have the romans ever done for us???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Who said animals are plasticine that can be moulded at will?
Take terrestrial vertebrates, pretty much every sincle one has a very similar body plan - four appendages, cranium, jaw, backbone eukaryotic cells, some variation of keritomous covering: hair, feathers, scales.
The evidencs shows animals are not very plastic at all.
Considering your OP, is talking about how macro evolution can’t be considered as a series of changes as it can only be driven of existing DNA - I explained that this is not the case - that major morphological changes are by definition explainable by small changes if you understand how organism development works.
As you don’t appear to have any response other than changing the subject onto something different, can I surmise that you’re conceding the point?
Created:
-->
@Grugore
Well first of all, everything I said is actually True, and the overwhelming majority is actually coming from admissions from the individuals involved themselves. I mean, you can try and pretend there wasn’t a meeting between Trump Jr and the Russians, but he admitted it - which goes for most of the rest good
So, let’s assume you can be objective for a moment. Let’s assume, say, The Trump tower meeting actually led to some specific collusion. You only want to hand out an indictment to one person if you can hand it out to all of the individuals you can show are involved, and you generally will only want to do that when an indictment won’t substantially harm onward investigation.
Let’s say they had solid evidence of that for Jr, Kushner, Trump. You’d probably indict the last two at the end of the investigation when the full extent
of everything - on all matters - is largely established and known (or leverage them in the background), and he probably will not indict Trump at all.
so in that respect there are a plethora of valid reasons why there have not been indictments on some of these issues - yet.
Created: