Essays in Honor of OOS

What a welcome antidote to Ray Comfort's specious introduction! So happy to have an institutional subscription.

There is no such thing as genius. Its just someone who did better then others who think they are pretty good.
Darwin simply had a idea that made sense to him and would hopefully put him in the ranks with Newton for great explanations.
I was surprised to find indeed Darwin meant to exclude any creation by God with the natural world or creation of man in any way.
Darwin make a concept but did not prove it.
Its not testable and so simple establishment favour has carried it forth in small circles.
Darwin is probably like Newton. He got the bigger picture wrong. His evolution is only a trivial cause and effect in nature and not the origin of anything.
Darwin still doesn't make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.
Its been long enough and its time for Darwin to step aside.
He was wrong after all.

I am currently unable to interpret "the D-M speciation model". Little help here?

The article itself is behind a paywall, and the abstract doesn't even mention speciation.

Robert Byers said: I was surprised to find indeed Darwin meant to exclude any creation by God with the natural world or creation of man in any way. Darwin make a concept but did not prove it. Its not testable and so simple establishment favour has carried it forth in small circles.

Darwin is probably like Newton. He got the bigger picture wrong. His evolution is only a trivial cause and effect in nature and not the origin of anything.

Darwin still doesn't make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.

Darwin still doesn’t make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.

John Harshman said:

Darwin still doesn't make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.

I'm trying to make sense of that, and I just can't figure out what nation you're talking about there. Except that I bet it's whatever one you belong to.

Robert Byers said: I was surprised to find indeed Darwin meant to exclude any creation by God with the natural world or creation of man in any way.

Charles Darwin said: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Robert Byers said: Darwin make a concept but did not prove it.

Robert Byers said: Darwin is probably like Newton. He got the bigger picture wrong.

Robert wrote:

"Its been long enough and its time for Darwin to step aside. He was wrong after all."

Please, enlighten us oh sage. Exactly what do you think that Darwin was worng about? Exactly why do you care about him 150 years later if he was wrong? Exaclty why should anyone care what you think?

John Harshman said: I am currently unable to interpret "the D-M speciation model". Little help here?

Joe Felsenstein said:

John Harshman said: I am currently unable to interpret "the D-M speciation model". Little help here?

It's the Dobzhansky-Muller model of speciation, that in geographically isolated populations substitutions accumulate that interact nonadditively, ending up bringing about reproductive isolation by making crosses inviable or sterile.

fnxtr said:

John Harshman said:

Darwin still doesn't make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.

I'm trying to make sense of that, and I just can't figure out what nation you're talking about there. Except that I bet it's whatever one you belong to.

As a Canadian (like Byers, I'm ashamed to say), the answer is a most emphatic no.

John Harshman said: Well, then, what nation is he talking about?

John Harshman said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

John Harshman said: I am currently unable to interpret "the D-M speciation model". Little help here?

It's the Dobzhansky-Muller model of speciation, that in geographically isolated populations substitutions accumulate that interact nonadditively, ending up bringing about reproductive isolation by making crosses inviable or sterile.

Thanks. But doesn't that generally involve selection? Not selection favoring sterility, but sterility as a byproduct of selection affecting other traits. At least that's the conclusion of Coyne & Orr in their book Speciation. I confess I don't know what Dobzhansky & Muller thought about it; were they claiming it was the result of drift alone?

John Harshman said:

fnxtr said:

John Harshman said:

Darwin still doesn't make a good case to a slight majority of people in the most intelligent nation in history.

I'm trying to make sense of that, and I just can't figure out what nation you're talking about there. Except that I bet it's whatever one you belong to.

As a Canadian (like Byers, I'm ashamed to say), the answer is a most emphatic no.

Well, then, what nation is he talking about?

DS said: Robert wrote: "Its been long enough and its time for Darwin to step aside. He was wrong after all." Please, enlighten us oh sage. Exactly what do you think that Darwin was wrong about? Exactly why do you care about him 150 years later if he was wrong? Exactly why should anyone care what you think?

Since I opened the D-M incompatibilities bag of worms, allow me to clarify what I meant. As Joe Felsenstein explained, the essence of the model is that allopatric populations become fixed for variants that are incompatible between the populations. For example, an ancestral population is fixed for alleles A1 and B1 at loci A & B. The population is split in two. In one population a new mutation arises at locus A (let's call it allele A2) and fixes. In the other population a mutation arises at locus B (we'll call it allele B2) and fixes. One population is fixed for A2 and B1 and the other population is fixed for A1 and B2. The A2 and B2 alleles have never been tested together, and they may be deleterious in combination. If they are deleterious, hybrids of the two populations (with the genotype A1/A2;B1/B2) will be less fit than the parental populations. If the populations are brought back into contact, this post-zygotic barrier could drive the selection for pre-zygotic barriers to reproduction which would lead to complete reproductive isolation.

My point was that the fixation of A2 and B2 in the two different populations need not be driven by natural selection. There is some evidence that natural selection does drive the fixation of these incompatibilities, but it's not necessary for the model.

Rich Meisel said: My point was that the fixation of A2 and B2 in the two different populations need not be driven by natural selection. There is some evidence that natural selection does drive the fixation of these incompatibilities, but it's not necessary for the model.

But what mistake did the Charlesworths make?

I believe this is what you're talking about:

"...uncovering evidence for the Dobzhanky–Muller hypothesis that natural selection is important in causing genetic differences between populations that lower the survival or fertility of F1 or F2 hybrids, as a result of deleterious epistatic interactions between alleles derived from the two populations (e.g., Barbash et al. 2003; Presgraves et al. 2003)."

Are you saying that Dobzhansky and Muller didn't think selection was important in this process? (If so, they appear to have been wrong, but nobody is right all the time.) Or did they merely ignore the question of how those alleles became fixed? I will note that "important" isn't the same as "necessary". Drift is certainly a way to acquire divergence. But selection is faster.

OK, you guys made me think, my thoughts required research and now I know something I didn't before. Thank you. However, now I have a question...

First, I'm assuming that mutation A2 or B2 only occurs in one indivual (is that valid?)

Now, if one individual has the mutation A2, in almost population of reasonable size (i.e. not 1 or 2), it is much more likely that the mutation be lost due to drift rather than fixed. The models I saw while reading all started with 50%/50% or something easy.

Correct my math here if need be. If the pop. is 100. 1 indivdual has A2, then the probability of that mutation appearing in the second generation is 1/100. So, there's a 99% chance that the mutation is lost in the next generation.

Isn't it much more likely to become fixed if there is some selection advantage?

Please forgive if I'm being dense.

Kevin, the probability of fixation of a new mutation is increased if there is a selective advantage. In a finite population, however, even most advantageous mutations will be lost. That said, as populations diverge, they will become differentiated at many loci, some fixed by neutral drift and others by natural selection.

I think the neutrality of the substitutions probably depends on the functional roles of the genes involved.

The mistake the Charlesworths made was saying that the D-M model predicts "that natural selection is important in causing genetic differences between populations". It does not such thing as far as I can tell.

Forgive my ignorance, as I'm not a population geneticist. But what's the reference for the D-M model? And should I suppose that this model didn't consider the reasons for fixation of incompatible alleles, and that the Charlesworths' error was in suggesting that it did?

Also, how are you Rich Meisel and Matt Young at the same time?

My take on it is that the Charlesworths were in error in suggesting that the model says anything about the reasons for fixation of the the incompatible alleles.

Here is the original paper from Dobzhanksy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208664/

I don't think Muller's is online, but it's titled "isolating mechanisms, evolution and temperature".

Allen Orr has a nice review of it here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8978022

That (Orr) was a great review. Henceforth we should call it "the Bateson model". I see your point, though Dobzhansky (as summarized by Orr) does seem to mention that fixation of the new alleles may be selectively favored. (And in fact selection would be likely to cause hybrid sterility long before neutral evolution had a chance at it.)

Rich Meisel said: My take on it is that the Charlesworths were in error in suggesting that the model says anything about the reasons for fixation of the the incompatible alleles.

in fact selection would be likely to cause hybrid sterility long before neutral evolution had a chance at it.)

I said: If a mutant allele is neutral because the substitutions in it just don't have enough effect on the functioning of the protein to cause a difference in fitness smaller than 1/(4N), then would they have enough effect to cause problems when the population was crossed with the other one? I suspect not.

Joe, you seem to be saying that if an allelic difference is neutral in one genetic background, it must be neutral in all genetic backgrounds. And hey, let's not forget external environmental differences too.

John Harshman said: Joe, you seem to be saying that if an allelic difference is neutral in one genetic background, it must be neutral in all genetic backgrounds. And hey, let's not forget external environmental differences too.

Most of what I know about the genetics of speciation is derived from whatever the last book I read says. And the last book I read was Coyne & Orr. They mention some Drosophila studies in which there was significant isolation after many generations of population separation in identical, unchanging environments. That suggests to me that drift is capable of doing the trick, if allowed enough time.

Satan inspired the European Darwin to write his unholy anti-Scripture because he mistakenly believed he already controlled America when his followers in the previous century imposed on her the God-denying concept of "religious freedom" that implicitly put Sodomites on the same moral plane with Christians! The Darwiniancs shortly overran God's continent and have turned it into Satan's Kingdom of Earth.

However, godly Americans have taken Satan's tool and used it against him. The Darwinian apostles of Satan have tied their hands with their own Constitution! The can not exterminate Christians from their own land and give it to Sodomites like they did in the Old World!

Toidel Mahoney,

I have two questions for you.
1) Is God all powerful?
2) Is God unconditionally loving and ethical?

Rob

Hats off to Toidel Mahoney! Whether he's a parody of a mindless creationist, or a mindless creationist, he's doing yeoman work to trash the anti-science efforts of creationists everywhere, in the minds of any sensible person who actually believes that the idiotic things he says here are representative of the movement.

Toidel,

You need to have a talk with Ray Comfort. He's been spouting off about how the banana was intelligently designed to fit the human hand perfectly. Given your obsession with sodomy, perhaps there are a few things you should point out to him.

Better be careful though. I pointed out that he didn't know anything about genetics and he called me a "hateful bigot". He didn't explain what he meant or why he used those words, but in my experience , name callers are almost akways projecting their own deficiencies and shortcomings unto others.

I don't know why you think that satan was responsible for Darwin and his ideas. However, since Darwin turned out to be right, does that make satan smarter than whoever wrote the Bible?

DS said: Toidel, You need to have a talk with Ray Comfort. He's been spouting off about how the banana was intelligently designed to fit the human hand perfectly. Given your obsession with sodomy, perhaps there are a few things you should point out to him.

DS said: Toidel, You need to have a talk with Ray Comfort. He's been spouting off about how the banana was intelligently designed to fit the human hand perfectly. Given your obsession with sodomy, perhaps there are a few things you should point out to him.

Better be careful though. I pointed out that he didn't know anything about genetics and he called me a "hateful bigot". He didn't explain what he meant or why he used those words, but in my experience , name callers are almost akways projecting their own deficiencies and shortcomings unto others. I don't know why you think that satan was responsible for Darwin and his ideas. However, since Darwin turned out to be right, does that make satan smarter than whoever wrote the Bible?

In addition to Rob's question, I have one for Total Baloney:

Why are you so obsessed with sodomy?

I don't think I've seen a single screed from you that didn't include some anal sex reference.

I wonder what the actual percentage of the European population actually engages in this practice, and why you want to focus so much on these individuals.

You didn't go to boarding school by any chance, did you? Or maybe you were a Catholic altar boy?

Or maybe you just wish you did?

Just wondering.

Toidel wrote:

"You are making a quintessentially Darwinoid category error. You think merely because one thing is shaped like another it can be used for the same function. Those who have a teleological worldview recognize that some things are ordained by God for eating, and other things are for different purposes. A world class scientist and theologian like Comfort probably does not need me to tell him that."

Thanks for making my point. In fact, Ray is the one who made that error. He assumed that just because the banana "fits the human hand" that God designed it to be eaten. Of course, the modern banana was designed by humans and definately not designed to fit the hand, whatever that even means. As if one could not eat a banana unless it had that specific shape. What, could God not make an apple with the shape of a banana? And who is to say that God did not design the banana to be a dildo, or something? It sure has the right shape. That was the criteria Ray used was it not? If you are going to make such a blatantly stupid argueent, you should be prepared for people to point out how absurd it is.

Those with a telological view will see purpose and planning in everything. That does not mean that they can identify the planner or the purpose. They are simply imposing human motivations and desires where none are appropriate. That is the entire cruz of ID and it explains exactly nothing. Most people grow out of that kind of thinking by about ten years old. Modern society grew out of it about two hundred years ago. Of course there are always some who refuse to evolve.

Ray Comfort is not a scientist of any sort. He understands nothing of biology or genetics. Next thing he will be saying is that watermelons could not have evolved because they are seedless! Good luck with that platypus man.

According to my parody versus creationist detection hypothesis, Toidel Mahoney is probably a parody poster (duh!).

Educated creationists are usually evasive and slippery, and verbose.

A slippery, evasive, verbose weasel is almost never a parody, because although such a style could easily be mimicked, doing so wouldn't be funny, or much fun.

A poster who come right out and starts firing about sodomites, hellfire, Satan, and so on may be a parody.

A poster who does that using correct spelling and grammar is almost certainly a parody.

For full disclosure, I find TM extremely amusing.

harold said: Educated creationists are usually evasive and slippery, and verbose. A slippery, evasive, verbose weasel is almost never a parody, because although such a style could easily be mimicked, doing so wouldn't be funny, or much fun.

harold said: According to my parody versus creationist detection hypothesis, Toidel Mahoney is probably a parody poster (duh!). Educated creationists are usually evasive and slippery, and verbose. A slippery, evasive, verbose weasel is almost never a parody, because although such a style could easily be mimicked, doing so wouldn't be funny, or much fun. A poster who come right out and starts firing about sodomites, hellfire, Satan, and so on may be a parody. A poster who does that using correct spelling and grammar is almost certainly a parody. For full disclosure, I find TM extremely amusing.

According to my parody versus creationist detection hypothesis, Toidel Mahoney is probably a parody poster (duh!).

A world class scientist and theologian like Comfort ....

What about a guy who claims the following:

1) Platypus (disproves evolution don't you know)

2) Bananas (intelligently designed don't you know)

3) Genetics (you share 150% of your genes with your ancestors but genetic similarity does not mean common descent don't you know)

Could this guy possibly be serious? Would anyone take him seriously? Part of Poe's law seems to be that there is no creationist smart enough to know when everyone else thinks he is so mind-numbingly stupid that all they are doing is laughing at him. Either way, TM is sure a hoot. I hope he gets over his sodomy fetish. You really can't evolve that way.

DS -

Yes, yes, yes, Anonymouse was clearly not a parodist.

It has nothing to do with the QUALITY of arguments presented. It has to do with the WAY they are presented.

He was verbose, weaselly and evasive. Look how many thousands of words he wrote. A parodist who spends hours blathering like that?

Look how he evaded every question. Look how he avoided mention of Hell, salvation, sodomites, temptresses, Judgment Day, or anything of that sort. He is only interested in creationism because it is related in his mind to those things. But rather than outright tell you that he is saved and you are going to Hell unless you repent and do what he tells you, he spends hours desperately spinning anti-science nonsense.

Verbose, weaselly and evasive = always a real creationist.

Overtly discusses Fundamentalist religious beliefs - i.e. talks about Hell, Judgment Day, Sodomy, etc = could be a parodist.

Harold's Modification of Poe's Law -

Sometimes you can tell a parodist from a real creationist.

BUT the actual arguments of real creationists are, in fact, potentially as stupid or stupider than anything a parodist could come up with. In that sense, Poe's Law is correct.

It's just that sometimes there are other ways to tell the difference.

DS said: What about a guy who claims the following: 1) Platypus (disproves evolution don't you know) 2) Bananas (intelligently designed don't you know) 3) Genetics (you share 150% of your genes with your ancestors but genetic similarity does not mean common descent don't you know) Could this guy possibly be serious? Would anyone take him seriously? Part of Poe's law seems to be that there is no creationist smart enough to know when everyone else thinks he is so mind-numbingly stupid that all they are doing is laughing at him. Either way, TM is sure a hoot. I hope he gets over his sodomy fetish. You really can't evolve that way.

harold said: A poster who come right out and starts firing about sodomites, hellfire, Satan, and so on may be a parody. A poster who does that using correct spelling and grammar is almost certainly a parody.

For full disclosure, I find TM extremely amusing.

I was laughing my head off at the "150% of genes" thing.

The context was that someone had explained that you get about 50% of your genes from each parent, and about 25% of your genes from each grandparent.

Not only did he fail to understand that we're talking about the SAME genes, and that your parents have them in common with/got them from THEIR parents (your grandparents), BUT -

He seems to think that he only has two grandparents! 2*50 + 2*25 = 150.

harold said: I was laughing my head off at the "150% of genes" thing. The context was that someone had explained that you get about 50% of your genes from each parent, and about 25% of your genes from each grandparent. Not only did he fail to understand that we're talking about the SAME genes, and that your parents have them in common with/got them from THEIR parents (your grandparents), BUT - He seems to think that he only has two grandparents! 2*50 + 2*25 = 150.

If an allopatric population is small and remains small for several generations it seems to me that genetic drift would be more likely to cause divergence than selection. Selection is a statistical phenomenon, and statistics do not work well with small populations. In a small population luck might be a more important component of fitness than genetic make up.

If two populations are allopatric, there cannot be selection for isolating mechanisms as such. If isolation mechanisms occur, they are a happenstance result of some combination of drift, selection, and whatever.

Toidel Mahoney said: Satan inspired the European Darwin to write his unholy anti-Scripture because he mistakenly believed he already controlled America when his followers in the previous century imposed on her the God-denying concept of "religious freedom" that implicitly put Sodomites on the same moral plane with Christians! The Darwiniancs shortly overran God's continent and have turned it into Satan's Kingdom of Earth. However, godly Americans have taken Satan's tool and used it against him. The Darwinian apostles of Satan have tied their hands with their own Constitution! The can not exterminate Christians from their own land and give it to Sodomites like they did in the Old World!

nmgirl said:

Toidel Mahoney babbled: Satan inspired the European Darwin to write his unholy anti-Scripture because he mistakenly believed he already controlled America when his followers in the previous century imposed on her the God-denying concept of "religious freedom" that implicitly put Sodomites on the same moral plane with Christians! The Darwiniancs shortly overran God's continent and have turned it into Satan's Kingdom of Earth. However, godly Americans have taken Satan's tool and used it against him. The Darwinian apostles of Satan have tied their hands with their own Constitution! The can not exterminate Christians from their own land and give it to Sodomites like they did in the Old World!

with his anti european rant, is they genius a supporter of harun yaya what's his name.

Nah, Toilet's a blog troll, defined as "one who posts insults solely for the purpose of attracting attention". He doesn't really believe the crap he writes. He's just trying to get your goat, which is what trolls do. (I wonder if that's the origin of the term?) He's also a Poe - a member of the subset whose trolling consists of posing as a creationist inspired by very extreme religion.

I base this assertion on Toilet's discourse, which has subtly shifted over the couple of years I have been observing it. (Hat tip to Harold's test for Poe, which also yields this result when applied to Toilet.)

Over time, Toilet has introduced two more elements into his mix: rabid illiberalism, because most posters here are liberals in the old sense: defenders of individualism and freedom of conscience, non-authoritarians, non-traditionalists. That was always implied in the first pose; but recently we have the added pose of raging anti-Americanism, because most posters here are patriotic Americans, or at least, like me, respect and admire America at its best, and wish the best for it.

In a sense, Toilet's venom has evolved, like that of a funnelweb spider, towards greater toxicity to the prey. But he is meeting an evolutionary response: the prey is evolving resistance. Toilet is actually having trouble eliciting more than a ho-hum these days.

Therefore, I predict some new toxin will soon appear.

fnxtr said: In addition to Rob's question, I have one for Total Baloney: Why are you so obsessed with sodomy? I don't think I've seen a single screed from you that didn't include some anal sex reference.

I wonder what the actual percentage of the European population actually engages in this practice, and why you want to focus so much on these individuals.

You didn't go to boarding school by any chance, did you? Or maybe you were a Catholic altar boy? Or maybe you just wish you did? Just wondering.

Rob said: Toidel Mahoney, I have two questions for you. 1) Is God all powerful? 2) Is God unconditionally loving and ethical? Rob

Toidel Mahoney said:

fnxtr said: In addition to Rob's question, I have one for Total Baloney: Why are you so obsessed with sodomy? I don't think I've seen a single screed from you that didn't include some anal sex reference.

Because of the role it plays in child discipline, the anus is our most profoundly spiritual organ. Using the anus as fornication tool is the ultimate act of disrespect for your Heavenly Father; it is like mooning your earthly father for disciplining you.

I wonder what the actual percentage of the European population actually engages in this practice, and why you want to focus so much on these individuals.

Well, when was the last time a non-Muslim baby was born in Europe? This indicates the percentage is very high.

You didn't go to boarding school by any chance, did you? Or maybe you were a Catholic altar boy? Or maybe you just wish you did? Just wondering.

Nope. I have never had any desire to be part of the Whore of Babylon.

Toilet MaPhoney babbled insanely:

I'm really mentally unstable and have nothing constructive to offer. Please excuse me; I have to practice in front of the mirror. Now, where did I put that banana?? Oh, yes ...

Well I think he's pretty much run his course. Definitely Poe. Well done, TM, you had us on the run for quite a while there. Almost like JanieBell and DS. :-)

Stanton said:

harold said: A poster who come right out and starts firing about sodomites, hellfire, Satan, and so on may be a parody. A poster who does that using correct spelling and grammar is almost certainly a parody.

On the other hand, those that don't may be the genuine moron, I mean material.

For full disclosure, I find TM extremely amusing.

Well, I agree that Toidel is amusing, provided we're comparing the reading of his posts to, say, the advanced stages of subcutaneous acariasis, or exploding diarrhea.

...the original “Sodomites” were actually hateful, miserly xenophobes who were exterminated because they wanted to kill two angels in disguise simply because they were strangers, and not because they were crazed gay-sex fiends like Toidel obsessively rants about.

... and Lot offers them his daughters instead.

... and then later on in another part of the forest, his daughters wait until he's drunk and then jump him.

The people who believe this story are very often the same ones wailing about The Sanctity Of Marriage. Sheesh.

fnxtr said: The people who believe this story are very often the same ones wailing about The Sanctity Of Marriage. Sheesh.

… and then later on in another part of the forest, his daughters wait until he’s drunk and then jump him.

Lot and his two daughters escaped the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Afterward, his daughters--concerned for their family line--tricked their father into sleeping with them with drink. The older daughter birthed Moab, who was the father of the Moabites. The younger, Ben-Ammi, the father of the Ammonites.

D. P. Robin said: Just a thought; has anyone seen Toidel Mahoney and Jed Smock in together? dpr

harold said: He seems to think that he only has two grandparents! 2*50 + 2*25 = 150.

It is thought that the writers of Genesis were making a joke and spreading malicious rumors and propaganda. That the neighboring kingdoms were founded by two acts of father daughter incest.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: I was surprised to find indeed Darwin meant to exclude any creation by God with the natural world or creation of man in any way.

You're wrong about Darwin, there. I quote the last sentence of the final edition of his most famous work:

Charles Darwin said: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Clearly denying any action by a creator in the present natural world and from whence it came

DS said: Robert wrote: "Its been long enough and its time for Darwin to step aside. He was wrong after all." Please, enlighten us oh sage. Exactly what do you think that Darwin was worng about? Exactly why do you care about him 150 years later if he was wrong? Exaclty why should anyone care what you think?

he is a worthy target for god guys everywhere

Ravilyn.Sanders said:

harold said: He seems to think that he only has two grandparents! 2*50 + 2*25 = 150.

What is so unusual about it? It just means he is from West Virginia.

Robert tried to write:

That natural selection on mutation plus time is the origin of living organisms in the pas and today. He’s wrong. This is the hear of darwins birth or somthing they are going on about. He is the face and thoughts and gets the credit for the great error of evolution. so he is a worthy target for god guys everywhere.

yours is wrong. yous don't to know nothin. i says darwins so right for you ignorant. You's wrong in the pas and todays. This is the hear of you birth or somthin yo is goin on abouts. You is the face and thoughts of nonsenses. you will never gets credit for the great errors of you balogny. you is worthy of target on yous heads.

Do you find this agrument convincing? No? Well now you see how I feel about the shit you crapped all over. Go away Robert. You are an embaressment to fifth graders everywhere.

DS: That would have been so much better without the spelling error in the last sentence. Didn't you notice the dotted red line under "embaressment"?

Everyone: It's annoyingly easy for creationist trolls to hijack threads. Can't we make it a little more difficult for them? 70-some messages and only one of them on topic after the first creationist strike.

Instead of complaining about what you think Darwin meant to say 150 years ago, why don’t you write your own book describing any evidence you have that affirms “any action by a creator in the present natural world and from whence it came”?