This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.
My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/14/2006 01:59:00 AM
10 Comments:
Test comment.
Test reality
Have you figured out a way to enable quotes yet? the quote and blockquote tags aren't enabled
Testing tags.
Test
Test
Test
Kevin wrote --
>>>Have you figured out a way to enable quotes yet? the quote and blockquote tags aren't enabled<<<
For answer, see my last post on the "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity" thread
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"John Test was investigating whether the blockquote would work." no blockquote
CHECKING BOLD and how is that?
Google a href does work.
So use i, b, and a href.
Thanks,
Fred
This is a test. This is only a test. If we were meant to take ID seriously, we would have been informed by the big sky daddy when we were first able to understand what he had to say in all his male, caucasian glory.
Ok, here is my test
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
ID is science
Nope, no one is buying it. The test failed.
Here is the comment that Josh Rosenau refused to post on Thoughts from Kansas --
Dave S. said,
>>>>>>(Larry to Josh) For a blogger who insists on civility from commenters, it was very hypocritical of you to make that comment.
But oh so accurate. <<<<<<
Irrelevant. Did you ever hear the Alice in Wonderland Story about the March Hare at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party who said that it is OK to put butter in a watch so long as it is the "best" butter?
BTW, I thought you said that you were leaving the debate here. Apparently you found my arguments too cogent so you decided to stick around to try to counter them.
>>>>>> Given that sugar circulates in all life-forms Larry, how do carnivores avoid it when they eat their prey? Do they spit out each molecule? <<<<<<
Carbohydrate gram counters for low-carb diets show zero grams for meats and most seafoods. Zippo.
>>>>>> What makes you think wings are only good for flight? Penguins don't fly. Ostriches don't. What good are wings to them? <<<<<<
I am talking about wings that are big enough to be useful for flight. Also, penguin wings might be used in swimming -- I don't know.
>>>>>> There is no scientific debate Larry. <<<<<<
We are having a scientific debate right here. Efforts by Judge Jones and others to suppress debate about evolution theory are actually a form of anti-intellectualism.
Josh said,
>>>>>There is sugar in every living thing. Therefore, anything that eats living things eats sugar. <<<<<<
See answer to Dave S. above.
>>>>>> First of all, you are assuming that bees have no need for chemoreception (smell) other than finding flowers. This is false. Pheromones are a common means not just of finding food within insects in general, but are a key component of mating and other forms of communication throughout the animal kingdom. <<<<<
We know that some plants are sexually attractive to insects -- I myself gave an example. So maybe the odors of some plants are sexually attractive to insects or attract insects in other ways that have been pre-developed by the insects (for example, there is a "corpse flower" that attracts insects by smelling like rotting flesh) -- but is that true of all plant odors that attract insects?
>>>>>> But rhizobia aren't currently parasitic. These are adaptations which prevent a return to the ancestral parasitic form. <<<<<
I know that -- but the adaptations prevent the bacteria from becoming parasitic. Plants that do not have this adaptation are subject to becoming hosts for parasitic bacteria. No surprises there.
>>>>>> The process I and everyone else who talks about coevolution propose is that the changes are gradual. <<<<<<
Well, I gave an example of a gradual change -- first the plants develop colors to attract pollinators and then develop scents to attract them.
Actually, in many cases gradual, incremental co-evolution is impossible because (1) the co-dependent relationship involves an irreducibly complex set of pairs of many co-dependent traits or (2) the co-dependent traits are harmful when corresponding traits in other organisms are absent.
>>>>> Whether a mutation is or is not a burden depends on the mutation. There is a well-understood theory of neutral mutations as the dominant form of mutation. <<<<<<
It takes only one exception to disprove evolution theory.
Do you consider it "decent" to ignore what people say to you?
I don't -- but people often ignore what I say to them.
Dave S. said,
>>>>>> I think it's interesting that Africanized killer bees release a scent that to us smells like bananas, but to them is a signal for everyone to attack. They also use scent to know we are there in the first place...nothing sets them off like the smell of carbon dioxide. <<<<<<
Carbon dioxide is present throughout the air in fairly high concentrations. A bee would have to get very close to a human face to detect an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide. And any wind will blow away the carbon dioxide before there can be a buildup in concentration.
Post a Comment
<< Home