BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:23 PM

" ... it is you that needs to write to lemski, telling him you ain't looked at his work but a creationist referenced it ..."

No, pete, it really is you that needs to do the work because it's you who keeps obsessing about this Lemski thing. You also keep demanding that we non-creationists give you our opinions on this work. Well, we haven't got any opinions because we're not familiar with it. Which reminds me, how familiar are YOU with Lemski's work? Have you read the original paper(s)? Have you followed up on the references? Have you read any commentaries on the work - other than creationist ones? Thought not!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:38 PM

Interesting thing going on here. It appears to me, Pete from*******, that you have enlisted the assistance of someone else.   Same stance but completely different style. Legitimate, of course, but interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:03 PM

Lighter: " squirrels turning into parrots!
Couldn't agree more...."


Finally!!...Usually I get a rash of shit anytime I post a simple and obvious truth coupled with COMMON SENSE!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

"Actually, Stu, you did. I suggest you read your own post,"

Well, that's not what I meant so between us we've miscommunicated.

"Is this the course you studied? S170 'Darwin and Evolution' – This course explains and explores the science of evolution for those with little or no scientific background."

It is! I see what you did there. In fact, the course was pretty awful and I was not at all happy with the quality of the teaching materials or the way it was presented. I did it to test the water and assess the quality of the OU undergrad course. The EvolutionMegaLab was the best thing about it. In the end I decided it wasn't for me and subsequently sought other avenues to further my interests.


"As with the peppered moth, all the variations already exist and all that may be happening is a change in their frequencies. None seem to be going extinct and no new species are being formed."

They've only got records dating back the last 30 years. Did you expect too see rampant speciation in that time? Do you know the rate of speciation of Cepaea? This is what they're trying to find out.

The site isn't written in technical language as it's designed to encourage citizen science (as you say) but the data will be robust and many scientists rely on non-professionals to help them with data acquisition (including palaeontologists).


"It was in the "Scientists and Science Education" link provided by Ed T and has now been followed up by an anonymous GUEST immediately after you asked."

Saw that, followed it and then decided not to root through the whole site looking for their definition.I'll have a look if a direct link to the pertinent passage is provided, but I've got a mountain of reading already and that's rather more important at this moment in time.

"Would you find "scientific idea" easier?

Nope. Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy. What would be the point?

Odd about pete. He's suddenly learnt to type. Also, his arguments are beginning to sound suspiciously . . . creationist in they are like that of way people who've learnt some big words use but don't have a clue about what they mean (especially when strung together). It'll be interesting to see how new pete measures up to the old, who at least had heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:22 PM

Guest(probably Don Firth): "Odd about pete. He's suddenly learnt to type. Also, his arguments are beginning to sound suspiciously . . . creationist in they are like that of way people who've learnt some big words use but don't have a clue about what they mean (especially when strung together). It'll be interesting to see how new pete measures up to the old, who at least had heart."

Ironic, or should I say hypocritical, how Pete is attacked relentlessly for his religious beliefs, which IS protected by our Constitution, and then those same BOZOS, turn around and use the Constitution (only when it's convenient), to scream 'Bigot', over pretzel-like convolutions of what they term as 'disagreement' over THEIR warp sense of agenda driven 'interpretations' of the Constitution!!!....They even change the definitions of words, to suit their nonsensical pig shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:35 PM

Calm down, Guestfs. It is obvious that it is not you who is ghost writing pete's profferings. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:26 PM

Curiouser and curiouser. pete doesn't seem to know the difference between belief and evidence and now GfS doesn't seem to know the difference between free speech and robust disagreement with bullshit!

Let's be clear, pete is free to believe any nonsense he likes but if attempts to spread that nonsense, he must expect opposition!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

Ok guest up there was me. I appear to 'ave lost me cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:04 PM

@Stu "Saw that, followed it and then decided not to root through the whole site looking for their definition."

It is used in the first sentence on the page. "Idea", as suggested above, would do just as well in the context.

I gave the link to be helpful. Google found it sinply by being given the phrase in question in quotes.

Back to lurking.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:45 PM

Stu (I presume), perhaps you should read your own posts before you send them.

If the EvolutionMegaLab was the best thing about that course, it must have been bad indeed. My experience with the OU was highly satisfactory and much more scientifically rigorous.

Did you expect too see rampant speciation in that time?
No. That's rather the point and why I find their claim that "you can see evolution in your own back yard?" to be somewhat overblown; a claim that you repeated when you posted it.

Do you know the rate of speciation of Cepaea? This is what they're trying to find out.
No they aren't. Nowhere near it. They are trying to find the changes in distribution of the various forms and whether they correlate with other factors.

I had never come across the Coalition of Scientific Societies before but judging by their member organisations, they carry a substantial amount of prestige. If they think "scientific concept" is a meaningful thing to say, I don't think your in a position to say it's "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy.". It might be worth your while making the effort to understand.

I think Evolution (as a necessary precursor to Darwin's Natural Selection) would be considered a theory if it had not developed (evolved?) over a period of time through many great thinkers. I think you should read Darwin's "An Historical Note". It's only nine pages in the Penguin Classics edition of The Origin of Species.

I don't take much notice of anything pete says.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:07 AM

"Think I may have missed your probabilities point, ..."

I suspect that you didn't miss my point, pete. Nevertheless, here it is again so that you can contemplate it:

"In my mind, it's not about faith - or even 'belief' - it's a question of probabilities. Who should I take seriously? Thousands of modern, reputable scientists, from a variety of disciplines, whose work has been peer reviewed, or a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goat herds and their latter-day, illiberal, fundamentalist, red-neck adherents? I know which group I bet on to be talking any kind of sense!"

If you insist that it's the second group who are in possession of 'The Truth' then that has some profound implications; it means that either all scientists (not just evolutionary biologists) are deluded or that science is some kind of HUGE anti-religious conspiracy. I would suggest that both of those things are highly unlikely ... what do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

So... Is pete evolving?

Have Goofus' balls dropped?

Will Amazon deliver the pressies I finally got around to ordering yesterday before Chrimbo?

Where are the scientists when you need them?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

I read the use of 'concept' ("idea" would do I think) as being a plain English word that would convey the meaning required - even to a creationist. Call that 'fuzzy' if you wish.

IMO the only reason to bother arguing with creationists is to give other people a chance to make up their own minds. Ask yoursleves - would you bother having a one-to-one argument with one ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM

Being busy discussing things with Stu, I left it to others to pick up on a point made by Musket the other day. Curiously nobody did.

Bill makes a good point re antibiotic resistance. However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution.

If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it?

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:02 AM

Cookie back. Not sure what happened earlier (user error).

"No they aren't. Nowhere near it"

The variation in alleles and the rate and reasons for those changes is part of the wider question of speciation rate. The rate of speciation is one of the most pressing questions in palaeontology/palaeobiology at the moment and studies such as the EML are informative as we seek to understand why species appear and disappear as they do; it's all very cross-disciplinary these days, which is even more fascinating and interesting to work on. A complex and fascinating subject, and I'm just starting working on one tiny-weeny part of this whole question myself now (dinosaurs, not tiny things).

As for the OU course, it was really terrible and totally lacking in scientific vigour. It was an introductory course (as you point out) but it was something to do and the course textbook was OK. Compared to the undergrad courses I'd taken at Exeter and Birkbeck the course was simply not up to snuff, and lacked any real substance.

"If they think "scientific concept" is a meaningful thing to say, I don't think your in a position to say it's "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy."

I'll make my own mind up about what I consider to be too fuzzy; why would you take anyone's word for anything, no matter how plush their website or impressive their associations. If we all did that, science would grind to a halt within the hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:16 AM

Musket (Ian) picks up the point explored in "Microbiology considerations for infection control" a copy of which I lent him when he was looking at the regulatory side of infection control. (I teach microbiology a a medical school at Glasgow University.)

There is an interesting chapter which looks at the sustainability of antimicrobial resistance as a result of intervention with drugs. Using fruitfly, induced resistance has shown no deterioation after two hundred generations with genetic morphing of bacteria over that period to overcome the resistance, leading to debate over whether we can call this (the morphing of certain bacteria) an example of evolution.

The trick of course is use of the word "evolution."

Thesnail has just said "no." Not sure what the "no" was to, but Musket asked a legitimate question based on recent research in my field. We are asking it too, and there are a number of papers published in BMJ, Lancet etc freely using the word "evolution" to describe phenomena observed over a two year experiment.

Musket's final question can however be answered.

Both.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM

Musket
If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it?

That would be inheritance of acquired characteristics. Are you (GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland) saying this has been achieved in fruitflies?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:55 AM

My reading (I am no expert) is that they are asking the question;

"If resistance is inherited (and it is) then an experiment to see how bacteria tries to evolve to overcome resistance was the point of the exercise."

"Inheritance of acquired characteristics" isn't what this is about. Our whole resistance to certain ailments goes back a long way. It isn't us changing but it does beg the question, is the annual cocktail change in the flu jab a reaction to evolution of infections and viruses?

I see this as a question, which is what I asked, of how tight a definition we can put on the word "evolve."

After all, I had a paper published once called "evolution of six sigma consideration in service improvement." Not very snappy but as in many threads here, it questions the preciousness of words by people who see words in tight definition.

A bit like "folk music" if you will...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM

"how bacteria tries to evolve to " Tries ? Huh ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

Musket
My reading (I am no expert) is that they are asking the question;

"If resistance is inherited (and it is) then an experiment to see how bacteria tries to evolve to overcome resistance was the point of the exercise."

Who are "they"? Where is this published?

It isn't us changing

But you said it was and that was what I said "no" to. Just to remind you. you said -
However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution.

If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it?

You are saying that resistance to bacteria acquired by one individual can be passed on to their children. That is "Inheritance of acquired characteristics".

Thank you anonymous GUEST. Bacteria don't TRY to evolve. Individual bacteria don't change. Those with low resistance to antibiotics are selected against. They die. Those with higher resistance survive and reproduce. The population as a whole becomes more antibiotic resistant.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Secret Lamarkian - no not really
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 10:14 AM

Epigenetic changes ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Devil's advocate (or, to some, God's ?)
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:31 AM

If the pale coloured moths were completely eliminated through selection the change would be irreversible and an adaption of the species to the environment.

But the pale ones and the dark ones could still have been created by God

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST, GUEST,Devil's advocate (or, to some, God's
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:00 PM

That was to a vanished post, I think from Musket, between the previous to GUEST posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:07 PM

Ah well, Stu, it seems I can't shake your faith in the Megalab Snail Hunt even though it comes from a course you say was really terrible and totally lacking in scientific vigour. I still don't think it shows me evolution in my backyard.

As for "Wayyyyyyy too fuzzy.", on the one hand we have -

American Association of Physics Teachers, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Physiological Society, American Society for Investigative Pathology, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, American Society of Human Genetics, Biophysical Society, Consortium of Social Science Associations, Geological Society of America, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Teachers Association, Society for Developmental Biology

On the other hand we have -

Stu.

By all means challenge everything but describing something as fuzzy isn't challenging, it's just brushing aside something you find inconvenient. As you advance in your field you won't just have to convince yourself but others as well and if you challenge orthodoxy you will have to put up a very good case. "Fuzzy" won't hack it. Barring the occasional revolution , science advances by building on what's there. Newton wrote " If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants."

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:40 PM

"By all means challenge everything but describing something as fuzzy isn't challenging, it's just brushing aside something you find inconvenient. "

I don't find it inconvenient, I'm simply making my own mind up. I'm sure those august institutions are full of people far cleverer than I (not at all difficult), but I don't see the point in arguing over their wording.


"As you advance in your field you won't just have to convince yourself but others as well and if you challenge orthodoxy you will have to put up a very good case."

Wow. Do I appear that dense? Were you spying on my last supervisory panel meeting? Does it piss you off when the proles get into academia? It's amazing I've got this far really isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:15 PM

I assure you ebbie, , that I is the only Pete here. Change style maybe.....self correcting I pad maybe...but still me.            Snail don't pay me no mind, but his arguments with the other science buffs is illuminating as to the utter uncertainty of the whole evolution thing. Interesting arguments about what ...evolve ....means, or more to the point....what is evolution...but seems obvious that none of it equates to the ...descent of man!             Oh that probability ! Shimrod.    You present a false alternative. Ancient people were not thick, and it is not only so called rednecks that believe creation, but many well educated also, who have had their work published in peer reviewed papers....though of course censured if the reviewers get even a whiff of creation in them. Do I keep going on about lemski ? I think rather you don't know when to admit defeat ! If I can do a bit of reading on the matter, I am sure a scientist like you can.......and then maybe show how that supports slime to shimrod evolution ......or as says snail......show me some evolution.?!!.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM

Devils guest.....the original moth kinds that God created would have had all the genetic variation contained therein to accommodate all the varieties seen today, including the ones glued to tree trunks !.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM

"had all the genetic variation contained therein" Yes, I had guessed from the need to demonstrate genetic change that the selection part of the argument had been won.

I am wondering if Pete acknowledges that radiation can create genetic variation. Or is God also throwing the gamma rays ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:05 PM

Just trying to helpful, Stu. I'd love to be there when you run "Way too fuzzy" past your supervisor.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:08 PM

Your getting very grumpy, Musket. Retirement not suiting you?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

I wouldn't use the term "scientific concept" when discussing my research with my supervisor. Some of the others listed earlier certainly, but probably not that term and would avoid it when writing too. But then that's just me. To my mind, it seems a fuzzy way of saying something that could be defined more clearly. Perhaps that's why it's there, not to frighten people off with technical terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:12 PM

Stu
To my mind, it seems a fuzzy way of saying something that could be defined more clearly.

Excellent! Would you care to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:06 PM

I did earlier. Hypothesis, theory and the scientific philosophy that forms the backbone of any given piece of research.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:44 PM

Amazing. pete from *******, thy style changeth again. At 1:15 it appears that Guestfs IS your ghostwriter after all. :)

***********************

Concerning the current subject I doubt this belongs here but I'm wondering whether my brother's experience in raising rabbit has any significance.

Through crossbreeding he came up with a coloration and conformation that he called 'Golden Rabbits'. The rabbits were born with golden/yellow colors counterpointed with white collars and feet.

He said it took him seven generations to stablilise the breed so that they bred true. Is that speciation?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:55 PM

That's it. Get rid of my posts to make me look a thick twat.

I can do that without the help of a thick yank thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:58 PM

It's not speciation. What your brother did was selectively breed rabbits with the alleles that caused their colouration. It's a bit like people with the same hair colour producing offspring with the same colour hair; they can still breed with people with different hair colours.

In fact, there are varying definitions of species. From a palaeontological research point of view, when looking at the characters of an animal you ignore the species altogether; each specimen is treated individually and relationships established from character matrices. When this is finalised then you can look at species.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM

" Ancient people were not thick, ..."

I never said that they were! Where did I say that?

" ... it is not only so called rednecks that believe creation, ..."

It is mainly though, isn't it, pete?

"Do I keep going on about lemski ? I think rather you don't know when to admit defeat ! If I can do a bit of reading on the matter, I am sure a scientist like you can."

So, you haven't read the original paper(s)then, pete? Or any of the references or any non-creationist commentaries? Thought not! So, all that you know about Lemski's work is what you've read on a creationist website; am I correct?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Stu
I did earlier. Hypothesis, theory and the scientific philosophy that forms the backbone of any given piece of research.

Do you mean when you said -
What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait.?
I thought you were being sarcastic.

All these are products of the human mind; attempts to bring some order and understanding to the actual observable evidence. None of them are something you can see in your back yard. Don't tell Steve Shaw who thinks that evolution is as real as the moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

What's the problem with using "scientific concept" as a wider term for "a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct". If you need to know which (or what else) go back and look at how it was used in the first sentence of that linked page.

Maybe using the wider term makes it easier for creationists to understand and harder for them to trot out off-the-shelf nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM

"..off the shelf nonsense"......such as ?      Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic....aka equivocation or bait and switch. Take that snail mega lab link, how does that demonstrate slimy snail to scientist snail, yet it is called evolution! Certainly not, as far as the general theory, as for example outlined by kerkut, is concerned.               Ebbie, the new Pete is insisting he is the same person as old Pete. Well, shimrod, seems I have read more about lemski and his bugs than you have, and I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution.   So I will quote snail again.....show me some evolution,....rather than the bait and switch of offering natural selection.       And complaining that I read creationist stuff is irrelevant. You either got a reasoned argument or you ain't .               Guest somebody, no problem with genetic variation....within the kind....howsoever caused.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:36 PM

Pete (what happened to pete?) stop using my "show me some evolution" line. You don't remotely understand the point I am making and I don't imagine you ever could so I won't try and explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

Creationists are confused by default. By trying to contradict the overwhelming evidence they are presented with (be it biology, palaeontology, geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology etc etc) they tie themselves in knots constantly, a problem they try to solve by inventing their own pseudo-scientific terms e.g. 'Baramins'.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM

"Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic ..."

It's not a tactic! It's easy!!

"I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution."

Somehow, I doubt whether Dr Lemski's starting hypothesis involved "microbes to man" - you plonker!!

Anyway, where were we, pete? Oh yes, you were going to read Lemski's original paper(s), follow up on the references and then perhaps write to Dr Lemski in order to clarify any points that you didn't understand. That's probably quite a lot of points ... perhaps it would be best not to burden him with too many ... I'm sure he's a very busy man ... just pick out the main ones ...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:43 PM

So evolution isn't as real as the moon, eh, Snailieboy? In what respect is it less real then?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:00 AM

You could try reading the whole of that post. If that doesn't work, try going back through the exchanges between me and Stu over the last few days. If you can't be arsed to do that, I suppose I could go back and cut and paste the important points but is it worth it? Are you actually prepared to listen and make an effort to try and understand or will you just go back to you playground abuse and blind instance that "It's True. It's True. It's True I tell you."?
You and Pete are very alike. You both KNOW THE TRUTH which means you don't listen to anything that doesn't suit your belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:10 AM

You're lashing out, Snail, desperately it seems. You said that I thought that evolution was as real as the moon (actually, I didn't say "real", but hey ho). Don't worry, I've read the whole thread but there are times when I can be a man of few words. Selective responding, sort of style. I was simply wondering, as you implied disagreement with my "thought", why you think evolution ISN"T as real as the moon (or not as true, have it your way, I'm not bothered). Simple enough, n'est-ce pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:16 AM

It could be Snail knows that with creationists like Pete about regarding the common descent element of evolution as 'scientific fact' is harder than regarding the moon as a 'fact'.

Would first need to convince Pete that it is a fact that his changes "within a kind" can lead to new "kinds".

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:24 AM

Steve Shaw
You're lashing out, Snail,
My first appearance on this thread was when you mentioned "the tiresome snail fellow" followed by your bizarre attack on me in your post of 13 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM. I don't think you're in any position to take the moral high ground. You frequently resort to personal abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate. I just need to know that if I am going to put any effort into a debate I can expect a reasoned response instead of references to slime trails whenever you're stuck for something sensible to say.

As to the question, you've read the whole thread, I've made it perfectly clear what I think evolution is so what's you're problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

No, GUEST, that isn't what I mean.

I see no point in trying to persuade Pete of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:24 AM

The moon is clearly visible. Anybody can see it's there by looking.

Evolution is mostly invisible. You can't just look up and see it.

The moon is a material object and evolution is a process

The difference is not the level of actuality, but in the ease of eyes-on verification by lay persons.