See any familiar faces?
Posted on 05/21/2003 4:53:28 PM PDT by blam
Genetic changes in mice 'question evolution speed'
A species of mouse has evolved dramatically in just 150 years, showing genetic change can occur much faster than was thought possible.
The discovery was made by accident by two American biologists studying the genetic make-up of a common wild mouse in Chicago.
Dr Dennis Nyberg and Dr Oliver Pergams, both from the University of Illinois at Chicago, analysed DNA samples from 56 museum specimens of the white-footed mouse dating back to 1855, and 52 wild mice captured from local forests and parks.
They found startling genetic differences between the 19th century and modern mice.
Only one of the present-day mice had DNA that matched that of mice collected before 1950.
While fast evolutionary change has been seen in fruit flies, such rapid evolution in a mammal has not been reported before.
The scientists, whose findings appear in the journal Nature, believe humans may have been partly responsible for the "new" mice.
"Settlers may have brought in mice with the favourable gene that were able to out-compete mice with the native variant," said Dr Pergams.
Story filed: 18:18 Wednesday 21st May 2003
Are you wanting to further tarnish your reputation with more lies? I thought so.
Lie #1: You didn't want productive debate. You wanted to discuss ALS.
I just went back and viewed the posts in question. Your transparent dishonesty is astounding.
His invitation to you, in its entirety, was thus:
Care to discuss the evidence [link provided] your buddy ALS has been studiously ignoring?That was indeed a clear invitation to discuss the *evidence* provided. The fact that he also (correctly) mentioned that ALS had been avoiding talking about the evidence IN NO WAY can be mistaken for a desire to "discuss ALS" with you instead of the evidence.
You owe Lurking Libertarian an apology for your disgusting and false accusation that he was a "liar". Are you honorable enough to make it?
Your reputation is on the line. Your response counts. Use it wisely.
He was also correct (and not "lying", as you falsely accuse) when he stated that you declined the invitation. Your reponse was:
To be honest, no, not any more interested than you'd be in discussing the evidence materialists ignore. Some other thread. This thread bit the dust about a thousand posts ago.I consider your excuse to be thin, at best, but that's beside the point. Lurking Libertarian was 100% correct when he stated that 1) he extended an invitation to you to debate the evidence, and 2) you declined it.
Your slimy claim that he "further tarnishes his reputation with more lies", when his statement was entirely correct and accurate, digs your own reputation into a very deep hole.
Now, what are you going to do about it?
Lie #2: I offered to engage you on another thread. You declined.
I note that unlike LL, you offered this claim without a shred of support (he provided links to the exchange he was discussing, you didn't). But even leaving that aside, how on Earth would this in any way make his statement a "lie"? It doesn't, of course, you're just using this counterclaim as a cheap excuse to throw more red herrings and another inaccurate accusation that LL has somehow "lied" when he *correctly* stated that he invited you to discuss the evidence and you declined it.
So tell me, why should I waste my time on a chronic liar?
You disgust me.
Why should *we* waste our time on someone who chronically makes FALSE accusations about other people lying when they clearly are not?
Again, your reputation rests heavily on the nature of your response. Or your lack of one, if you choose to run away from it. Think long and hard before you answer. Show us that a creationist can be honorable, and understand the basic differences between truth and falsehood. Your move.
See any familiar faces?
let's vote
all those who like it raise your hands
all those opposed, just keep dragging them...
Laborious, yes. Useless, no. It's actually quite instructive, in that if the reader takes the relatively small amount of effort it takes to do more than just read the "did so/did not" exchanges and actually *look* at who said what originally -- and what they now *claim* (truly or falsely) to have said originally -- it's quite easy to find out who's straightforward and honest, and who's as untrustworthy as a Clinton.
Take, for example, my previous post where I compared what you and LL *claimed* you had said earlier against what you had both actually *said* earlier. LL's account was quite simply accurate, your account was disgustingly false and (incredibly) tried to falsely paint LL as the liar.
Game, set, and match.
I don't expect your side to actually consider this, but asking for productive debate is properly done without a clown suit and Pinocchio nose.
I don't expect *your* side to actually consider this, but debates are more productive when you honestly address the issues and stop making childish and empty "contributions" like the above "clown suit" nonsense.
But then, random insults are far easier than real discussion, aren't they?
Even your own Clinton babble (post #1792) just made a "evos are like Clintons" slur without a *shred* of attempt to actually justify it in any way by tying it to a particular example or any supporting evidence (and then childishly went even more over the top with the moronic "TI99, Timex Sinclair, Amiga or Commodore 64" nonsense.)
I leave the decision as to which side engages in which approach more often, as an exercise for the lurkers. I have full confidence that they won't have any trouble reaching an accurate conclusion on that matter.
Which is immediately.
Oh, really? You "forgot" to include an example from this thread. Feel free to take a stab at it -- or retract your empty insults.
To count, your example will have to include:
1. An actual argument (as opposed to insult) "put forth to them by an opponent".
2. An evo "immediately" turning to "insults" because they "see they cannot refute" the argument.
Go for it. We'll wait.
Feel free to document this slur.
III. An evo's guess is true. A non-evo's fact is false.
Feel free to document both of these slurs.
H. An evo's insult is not an insult.
Feel free to document this nonsense as well. Sure, we sometimes insult. The difference is, we usually give the reasons for our insults (i.e., reference specific creationist posts, stupid statements, behavior, etc.), whereas most of the page after page of creationist insults in these threads are just thrown in like the shrieking howls of excited monkeys without any attempt whatsoever at supporting the slur (for example, this very post of yours...)
x3. When it gets hot in the kitchen, run to mama.
You're what, twelve?
"No it isn't".
(Wow, things really *are* much easier when one doesn't bother providing actual evidence, and just makes empty claims like "there are things which support my claim, really, over in that general direction, but I'm not going to actually specify any so that no one can pin me down... No wonder the creationists enjoy it so much.)
Now that we've gotten *that* out of the way, feel free to give actual specifics. Ah, don't bother, you've wasted enough of our time here already.
Question to Eloons:
Do you agree or disagree with darwood?
What about this one? Agree/Disagree/Afraid to say/Suddenly Embarassed?
hmmm?
Those are pieces of different sentences from different letters to different people, chopped up and made to look like one sentence which has a meaning exactly the opposite of what Darwin intended. But you knew that, of course, because that was shown to you some 700 posts ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.