Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Shrunk · **#41** by **Shrunk** » Apr 11, 2013 11:56 pm

asyncritus wrote:In this case the facts are exceedingly clear and very well documented. It certainly did happen, but the tourists have ruined it, and the birds apparently don't return to Capistrano any more, but land in the neighbourhood somewhere.

Damned tourists. Making a fool of the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of the Universe yet again.

Shrunk · **#42** by **Shrunk** » Apr 12, 2013 1:02 am

Just a reminder for you, asyncritus, since you've been away a while:

How do you reconcile these two statements from your earlier post:

What effects would the 'mutations' have to produce?

1 The geographical information would have to be inserted correctly. A one degree west error would mean extinction....

Where natural selection would fit in to all this, I do not know.

Thomas Eshuis · **#43** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 12, 2013 7:45 am

trubble76 · **#44** by **trubble76** » Apr 12, 2013 8:33 am

asyncritus wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
or don't, as you were told this post and several times subsequently.

As you don't seem to grasp, this is a debating forum, not a lecture theatre.

I asked, and ask again, since we are seeking SCIENTIFIC answers to biological questions:

How did those swallows figure out the way to Capistrano and back? (7,500 miles one way).

How did the information enter their genomes (if that's where it is)?

We'll revisit the eels later. So sharpen up your knives/brains. You'll need them.

Are you arguing that migration = god?

Most certainly. What alternatives do I have?

Well, for a start, just about any answer is better than imagining an invisible superhero that spends it's time directing birdies around the world. At least until we have some sort of evidence that suggests that hypothesis (I use the word generously).

Just to be clear, you think that it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of birds flying to where they can find food/nesting sites without invoking the christian god, do you?
If they didn't have wings, I might be tempted to agree with you, but as they have wings and are competent fliers, I don't find it miraculous that they fly in order to get to things that they want.

If you base your god on such shaky foundations, you might find him falling over quite frequently.

campermon · **#45** by **campermon** » Apr 12, 2013 10:21 am

asyncritus wrote:
Also, playing the wiki game:
It is believed that the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect on an organism's fitness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Do you see the double-edged sword you're playing with?

If mutations 'have no significant effect on an organism's fitness' ...

You missed the bit "the overwhelming majority of mutations". This implies that there is a minority that do have a significant effect. This, plus the fact that there is plenty of time means that these mutations build up in a population.

asyncritus wrote:
then that works both ways.

1 There's little improvement possible or likely. Evolution is therefore at a standstill.

2 There's little damage possible or likely.

"improvement"? Who taught you this nonsense?

asyncritus wrote:
How this could then produce 2 precisely executed flights of 7,500 miles year after year, is, in my view, a very wide open question.

"precisely"? Did you not read what aiki posted? I recommend that you read it.

asyncritus wrote:
Your sheep: as Darwin powerfully pointed out, the breeders have done extraordinary things - but there are limits to the variation possible, so sheep remain sheep, and cows remain cows, and peas remain peas. I have no problem with that.

Yup, sheep will bear sheep, cows will bear cows etc.....

What happens, in your opinion, if populations are geographically separated for geological amounts of time?

How do you account for ring species, for example?

:thumbup:

Rumraket · **#46** by **Rumraket** » Apr 12, 2013 10:22 am

asyncritus wrote:
theropod wrote:asyncritus,

If you're arguing that gawd placed these migration patterns into swallows show your work. All you are doing is just bitching about how you can't see how evolution could have "done it" You know you can't do this. We know you can't do this. All this is about is how much a problem it is for you to accept observational reality because it fails to kiss your god's stinking, but imaginary, ass.

Oh, and explain why there are no bird fossils found in Cambrian deposits? I thought gawd "done it" in 6 days.

RS

A scientific approach seeks to first observe the facts, then second attempt an explanation of those facts.

In this case the facts are exceedingly clear and very well documented.

You'll have no trouble producing tonnes of reliable documentation to support this, then, which doesn't amount to a single newspaper article from 20 years ago? Which unambigously states as a matter of fact, that the exact same swallows return on the exact same date, to the exact same place, every year. This was your original claim.

Shrunk · **#47** by **Shrunk** » Apr 12, 2013 10:29 am

Rumraket wrote:You'll have no trouble producing tonnes of reliable documentation to support this, then, which doesn't amount to a single newspaper article from 20 years ago? Which unambigously states as a matter of fact, that the exact same swallows return on the exact same date, to the exact same place, every year. This was your original claim.

Tourists messed it up, remember? They were probably riding iron chariots.

Rumraket · **#48** by **Rumraket** » Apr 12, 2013 11:06 am

asyncritus wrote:

Let's start with MUTATIONS.

What's a mutation? Answer: a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism

The vast majority of mutations are either harmful or neutral in their effects. Offhand I cannot recall an improvement created by a mutation. Hence wiki:
One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent mutations.[1]

Yes, mutations in protein coding genes are likely to be either nearly neutral or slightly deleterious for the most part. Beneficial mutations can happen but they are rare. Of course, it's an average because every protein is different.
Of course, our genomes contain a lot more than just protein coding sequence. Most of it is junk, a smaller part is non-coding regulatory regions, and then a tiny fraction is protein coding genes.
Also, mutations are different. You can have a duplication of a protein coding gene, which doesn't alter the protein, but it's expression levels instead. This is what has happened to the salivary amylase gene in humans. Some people have many copies of this gene, and it has been demonstrably beneficial in dealing with a high-starch diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation

Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1-3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that salivary amylase gene (AMY1) copy number is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein levels, and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have on average more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the level of AMY1 copy number differentiation is unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number variable gene is one of the first in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels likely improve the digestion of starchy foods, and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.

So there you have it, you have now been told of an example of a beneficial mutation, and you now no longer at any point in your life have to feign ignorance and memory loss when talking about whether beneficial mutations can happen. Save the link.

asyncritus wrote:Let us then hypothesise a proto-swallow (in Goya, Argentina) which remains locally and does not migrate, or only does so to a very limited extent. Its genome is stable, and totally functional.

Fast forward to its descendants, migrating swallows capable of flying to Capistrano from Goya, a one way journey of 7,500 miles, and back 6 mths later. These swallows can pass on the genetic information needed for the bird to make that migration, which we have to assume is in the genome somewhere

No, technically it doesn't. What only needs to be there in an otherwise already migrating species, is the instinctive behavior to "start migrating" when certain environmental clues accumulate (food scarcity, shorter days with more darkness, colder).

Now the brain becomes important in conjunction with the navigational equipment. That means the birds senses. Birds use all sorts of envionmental clues when navigating, among which is the ability to navigate using the earth's magnetic field. I suggest you watch this video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM[/youtube]

asyncritus wrote:The question which needs a satisfactory answeris: how did that information enter the genome?

The specific information you're asking for doesn't need to be in the genome at all. Already migrating birds could suffer mutations that would alter their direction of migration, by changing their sensitivity to various envionmental clues, resulting in the swallows starting a new migration route and ending up somewhere else. They don't need to have information about the entire landscape of the trip encoded in their genes, they only need to respond somewhat predictably to certain cues they meet along the way.
Fuck, we already know they do this, since they apparently stopped going to church in Capistrano and started making nests elsewhere.

The whole bullshit about them arriving on exact dates every year, was probably bullshit to begin with, and instead people started celebrating the bird's return on specific dates instead. But in actuality, they probably arrive incrementally over a couple of days. I'm going to go out on a limp and guess that if you really bothered to check how many arrive and with what frequency, you'll get a nice standard distribution spread out over 3-5 days. That's how nature normally works.

asyncritus wrote:If mutations are as damaging as the above quote from wiki demonstrates, then is it likely that such a massive reconstruction in the bird's genome could come about by 'mutation'?

You're entirely without basis assuming that changes in their migration patterns requires "massive reconstruction" of their genomes. There's nothing to support this assumption, it's borne out entirely of your ignorance of animal behavior and genetics. I suggest you remedy this lack by getting some proper biology education.

Also, you're overemphasizing the nature of mutations and their effect on the genomes of organisms. Most of the variation in sexually breeding populations actually come from genetic recombination. We might not even need to appeal mutation-borne variation to explain changes in migration patterns of birds, but simply to the chance products of sexual recombination.

asyncritus wrote:What effects would the 'mutations' have to produce?

If we absolutely insist that we must stick to mutations, it depends. There are many kinds of mutations. One could go down millions of routes of speculation. Heck, a single mutation could change the bird's sensitivity to the strength of the magnetic field of the planet, causing it to migrate much further. The bird would retain all it's other instinctive behaviors, like where and when to rest, what cues to look for and seek out when it migrates and so on. That's just one way it could happen.

asyncritus wrote:1 The geographical information would have to be inserted correctly. A one degree west error would mean extinction.

Not really, no.

asyncritus wrote:2 The timing would have to be inserted as well, somehow, to get them there on or around 18th March.

Already covered.
1. No reason to believe they really start migrating on the exact same date every year.
2. Seasonal accumulations of environmental clues could spur them to start migrating.
3. They would usually arrive in a pattern spread out over a period of time, which would probably end up looking like a normal distribution.

asyncritus wrote:3 The bird's strength would have to be increased dramatically, to power that enormous flight

For all we know the bird was already this strong before it migrated all the way. Or, it could also be the case that the bird migrated in increments and ended up with the entire distance they migrate today. If that was the case, there would be plenty of opportunity for natural selection to hone the bird's physique.

asyncritus wrote:4 Anything else?

It's your list, you tell me.

asyncritus wrote:So the mutations alone are most improbable to produce such an enormous behaviour change, not to mention the accuracy of the flight path.

Already dealt with, your assumptions about mutations and about what kind of information needs to be in the genomes of living organisms is at fault. I don't need to have a complete picture of Denmark to know how to get to the nearest train station. My environment contains certain cues, like noise from trains and roadsigns.

For the bird, this could be analogous to seeking out specific magnetic field line angles, specific forests and mountains or whatever other cues the bird uses to navigate. It finds them attractive and flys towards/along them. It doesn't even need to know how or why. This behavior could be partially instictive, partially learned.

asyncritus wrote:Where natural selection would fit in to all this, I do not know.

At least you're being honest.

asyncritus wrote:But I'm sure you can see the problems, and the reason for my questions.

Yes and I prescribe you a healthy dose of evolutionary genetics, biophysics and ethology to remedy this.

THWOTH · **#49** by **THWOTH** » Apr 12, 2013 12:56 pm

THWOTH wrote:
asyncritus wrote:The question which needs a satisfactory answer is: how did that information enter the genome?

No. The question does not have to be answered to your satisfaction, it only requires demonstrable parsimony to meet the condition of an answer. Whether you wish to accept that or not does not place an extra burden on those addressing the issue, nor does it require that the parsimonious explanation should be thrown out or redrafted to satisfy your particular conditions or to defeat your personal incredulity.

Personal incredulity and assumptions about the unlikeliness of mutation producing fitness enhancing traits over time do not constitute a reasoned argument in and of themselves.

Drug resistant Tuberculosis is an example of mutation producing fitness enhancing traits in a population over time. What would be your demonstrable and parsimonious, non-mutation explanation for the recent evolution of the Tubercle bacillus?

halucigenia · **#50** by **halucigenia** » Apr 12, 2013 4:12 pm

asyncritus wrote:
halucigenia wrote:Welcome back asyncritus. I am beginning to see a pattern here - Is April a particularly free month in your calendar or something?

Thanks Halucigenia. I hope you mean that, and are not being sardonic.

I've been rather taken up with various preaching duties in South Africa and elsewhere, and things have eased up a bit now.

So you have been undertaking your annual migration then? :ask:

asyncritus wrote:You might be interested to know that audiences are usually more than a little startled to hear about the swallows,

Did they ask you what a swallows unladen airspeed velocity was? :ask:

asyncritus wrote:and I haven't had a contrary comment from any of the evolutionists in the audiences (there were some).

Did they not even ask you if they were African or European swallows? :ask:

When you spoke with them how could you gauge that they were "evolutionists" did they let you know that they studied evolutionary biology?

asyncritus wrote:But thanks again for the welcome.

I missed you too.

Oldskeptic · **#51** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 12, 2013 5:50 pm

Haven't we done this already?

Let's paint a picture: There are millions of American swallows that winter in South America and spend summer in North America, they are all over the place. They nest where conditions are right for them, not just under the eves of missions. It's a first come first served situation.

If the birds get to a suitable bridge, over hung cliff wall, or building and it is already occupied to capacity they move on until they find an unoccupied nesting cite. There is no evidence or guarantee that the same birds return to the same place year after year. They just head north or south and take the first available place they find. So some end up around Goya and some end up around Capistrano. Some end up in Arizona and some end up in Venezuela.

Winter grounds are all the way from Venezuela to Argentina. Summer grounds are all the way from Northern Mexico to Northern California.

At certain times of the year, starting soon, I can easily find American swallows where I live in Southern Utah. All I have to do is walk out to my backyard in the evening and watch them fly around catching flying insects. If I want to find their nests all I have to do is take a sort hike up a nearby narrow canyon. A canyon with a small stream that supplies the mud to build their nests, and overhanging ledges where they can build them.

Oldskeptic · **#52** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 12, 2013 7:55 pm

asyncritus wrote:
halucigenia wrote:Welcome back asyncritus. I am beginning to see a pattern here - Is April a particularly free month in your calendar or something?

Thanks Halucigenia. I hope you mean that, and are not being sardonic.

I've been rather taken up with various preaching duties in South Africa and elsewhere, and things have eased up a bit now. You might be interested to know that audiences are usually more than a little startled to hear about the swallows, and I haven't had a contrary comment from any of the evolutionists in the audiences (there were some).

But thanks again for the welcome.

So, you go around South Africa and elsewhere teaching things that have been proven false to you here. Is there no cognitive dissonance? Is spreading Christianity so important that lying is allowed? You may not think that you are lying, but ignoring everything that has been explained to you here is deceptive.

Why do you think that you are any less deceptive than YECs? They ignore evidence and arguments and go their merry way repeating their claims in the name of Jesus, so do you. There is nothing noble in this if you have to lie to spread your message.

THWOTH · **#53** by **THWOTH** » Apr 12, 2013 8:06 pm

asyncritus wrote:... There's nothing 'random' about a mechanism which permits a 7,500 mile flight ending at precisely the same point and with an arrival date of plus or minus one or two days . To put the matter simply, if an ICBM is fired in Goya and hits Capistrano every year for hundreds of years, then I would be hard put to say that the ICBM was a random production of Raytheon's factory.

I am forced to the conclusion that there's nothing random about it...

If one is to accept that a natural phenomenon like swallow migration is not the manifestation of an evolved trait but, an example of intentional design similar to the programmed flight path of an ICBM, then there arises a certain inescapable implication; that organisms exist for a purpose, to wit, to manifest their specifically designed traits in accordance with their designer's wishes.

For examples, swallows migrate because they have been intentionally and intelligently designed to do so, or bacteria are transmitted along their vectors and infect because they have made for that purpose. Holding this to the fore thus one might feel comfortable presuming that there is nothing random, haphazard, or non-deterministic about an organisms purpose: the purpose of the swallow is to migrate, the purpose of the bacteria is to infect. So it goes; etc.

The collected and demonstrable knowledge which amount to evolutionary theory today is not concerned with purpose in this sense. Scientists and others may ask 'Why do swallows migrate and bacteria infect(?)' but they look beyond glibly reassuring, but ultimately shallow answers like "Because they're supposed to," or "That's just the way God made them," in an attempt to determining the underlying processes at work.

The 'just because' kind of answers answer nothing.

Offering these types of answers by way of explanation explains nothing.

Maintaining that these kinds of explanations are a perfectly adequate response to our natural curiosity simply acts as a barrier to advancing our understanding about the natural world. In these circumstance, when curiosity leads us to answers and explanations which do not conform to the 'just so - God did it' platitudes a choice has to be made - between sticking to (all be it limited) preconceptions or embracing the facts of the matter in the hope of acquiring some knowledge and understanding.

Maintaining one's preconceptions in the face of facts, and holding them to be among the highest, most assured forms of truth, places the faithful believer in a quandary, which might be exemplified thus: if, for example, a bacterium is an intelligently designed organisms whose intended purpose is to infect humans -- such as the Tubercle bacillus does -- then why is a loving God making things to kill us?

It is my view that in an intentionally designed universe the problem of evil cannot be overcome. Taking the demonstrable existence of bacterial infections as an example ...

Either God did not want us to succumb to infections but could not prevent them, or he could prevent them by not designing them but did not want to. If he wanted to prevent the suffering that followed but could not then he is not an all-powerful being. If he could have prevented suffering by not designing infectious agents (or irradicating them at will) but did not want to then he is malignly malignant himself and not worthy or our esteem, regard, worship and/or obedience. But if God is truly benevolent and all powerful, and could have abolished the suffering borne of infectious diseases, and indeed really wanted to do it, then why do people continue to die from these terrible infections?

The conclusion is that either God did not exist to begin with, or he is an evil monster.

By contrast, the explanations offered by evolution state that infectious agents exploit a particular environmental niche and that the organisms that exhibit traits which allow them to exploit their environment more efficiently will prosper over time when compared to others. The environment, mutation and gene frequency are the driving force of this process and is exemplified in the famous case of the peppered moth or the increasing prevalence of drug resistant bacterial infections, which are just two of a great number of documented examples of 'Evolution In Action.' No 'purpose' is required other than an organism survives to pass its portion of the gene pool to the next generation.

The 'purpose' of an organism is to act as a vector by which genes might persist and propagate.

:coffee:

Weaver · **#54** by **Weaver** » Apr 14, 2013 2:41 am

THWOTH wrote:

The 'purpose' of an organism is to act as a vector by which genes might persist and propagate.

Or, in the ultimate reduction I personally prefer, "The zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."

halucigenia · **#55** by **halucigenia** » Apr 14, 2013 1:09 pm

Weaver wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

The 'purpose' of an organism is to act as a vector by which genes might persist and propagate.

Or, in the ultimate reduction I personally prefer, "The zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."

Are you thinking of organisms where the diploid zygote produces the dominant form of the organism and the gametes are relatively insignificant, to make this sound counter intuitive? :scratch:

As it is the other way around in some organisms such as in bryophytes (mosses and liverworts etc.), where the haploid gametophyte is the dominant organism. For example the moss plant that we are familiar with is the gametophyte haploid form of the life cycle whereas the diploid form in the life-cycle is the temporary sporophyte that is produced by the sperm (yes mobile flagellate sperm :shock:

) fertilising the egg. This temporary diploid sporophyte simply grows as a stalk on the gametophyte to produce a spore capsule that releases the haploid spores which then are spread and go on to produce more haploid moss plants. So the zygote is just the gamete's way of producing more gametes in mosses.

I bet that you never knew that the sex life of mosses was so interesting did you?

That's why I prefer to state:-
Isn't a rhinoceros is a wonderfully round about way for genes to replicate themselves. :smoke:

halucigenia · **#56** by **halucigenia** » Apr 14, 2013 2:14 pm

asyncritus wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:asyncritus, may I ask, are you into old-earth or new-earth creationism?

I'm an old earth creationist. There is no avoiding the geological and astronomical facts pointing that way, in my opinion.

And I regret the excesses of the YEC people, though they do have some evidence on their side, which gives me pause.

Just to mention one:

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the air has to be just so, or plants could not photosynthesise - there's a lower limit.

That percentage is maintained in an equilibrium by animals' respiration.

Therefore plants and animals had to appear within a reasonably short time frame. Or the whole thing couldn't work.

There's also the question of the bees and the flowers. Which came first?

But that's just me thinking out loud. You guys may have other valid ideas, which I'd like to hear.

Talking of photosynthetic organisms (like mosses)...

asyncritus did you not know that originally the composition of the Earth's atmosphere was reducing (lacking in oxygen) mainly carbon dioxide and nitrogen known as Earth's second atmosphere due to cometary and asteroid bombardment and volcanic out-gassing. Anyway, the point is that the earth's atmosphere is very far from it's natural equilibrium, as it was only due to life, that originated in this reducing atmosphere that oxygen built up in the first place. To the first organisms oxygen would have been a harmful by-product of their metabolism but as these organisms that could utilise the sun's energy in metabolising carbon dioxide continued producing this toxic by-product, free oxygen, and increased in numbers their output was sequestered by iron oxides giving rise to the banded iron formations of the Precambrian. Once these oxygen sinks were used up free oxygen was able to build up in the atmosphere and organisms had to cope with this new toxic environment. Of course as life does it evolved to take advantage of this previously toxic gas and therefore only then did the aerobic organisms arrive on the scene.
See The Great Oxygen Event.

Therefore you are wrong to assert that “Therefore plants and animals had to appear within a reasonably short time frame. Or the whole thing couldn't work.” Is this the kind of lie that you tell to your audiences?
What actually happened, rather than a “chicken and egg” situation was that photosynthetic organisms such as cyanobacteria (I have some remarkable terrestrial examples of these that grow in my garden on the paths known as Nostoc commune that look just like seaweed, but land dwelling seaweed) came first, in an anerobic atmosphere, and they first produced the free oxygen that we now know in our atmosphere.It was not until after this event that the atmosphere that we know, which is far from equilibrium, because of the evolution of oxygen producing organisms, was generated.
While it is true that it is now maintained at this out of equilibrium composition by both plant and animal life, this composition is known to have fluctuated over geological history. One of the implications of these fluctuations it that half metre long wingspan dragonflies (Meganeura) were enabled to evolve in the Carboniferous as there was a significant increase in oxygen during these times.

Oh, and as for “the question of the bees and the flowers.” insects have been around for at least 400Ma and flowering plants (angiosperms) for only ~250Ma. So insects only evolved to utilise nectar once this source, in flowering plants became availabe. Bees, as a specialised form of wasp would have originally evolved from a form of predatory insect.

Asyncritus please stop spreading your lies.

Rumraket · **#57** by **Rumraket** » Apr 14, 2013 2:47 pm

asyncritus wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:asyncritus, may I ask, are you into old-earth or new-earth creationism?

I'm an old earth creationist. There is no avoiding the geological and astronomical facts pointing that way, in my opinion.

And I regret the excesses of the YEC people, though they do have some evidence on their side, which gives me pause.

Just to mention one:

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the air has to be just so, or plants could not photosynthesise - there's a lower limit.

That percentage is maintained in an equilibrium by animals' respiration.

Actually, plants produce CO2 on their own and are perfectly capable of maintaining the equilibrium without animal respiration around.

I'm sure most have seen the story about this one going around recently: Ecosystem in a bottle having thrived for 40 years. It's just dirt, a little water and air inside it. No animals of any kind.

Plants evolved under a specific concentration of atmospheric CO2 which they simply adapted to. Should this concentration change too quickly for them to be able to adapt, they'll go extinct of course. But if it's sufficiently slow, they will change accordingly. There's no magic balance that has to be maintained by some mysterious outside force, evolution can do this all on it's own. That's the point of the theory of evolution, to explain how the biosphere originated and continues to sustain itself without intelligent intervention. You can't point to facts about nature as refutations of the very theory that explain these facts.

thaesofereode · **#58** by **thaesofereode** » Apr 14, 2013 2:55 pm

Who cares.

Rumraket · **#59** by **Rumraket** » Apr 14, 2013 3:06 pm

thaesofereode wrote:Who cares.

Not you, apparently:

: care.jpg (180.95 KiB) Viewed 1508 times

Oldskeptic · **#60** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 14, 2013 4:03 pm

thaesofereode wrote:Who cares.

When you write "Who cares." It is a statement that there is someone or something called "Who" that does care. There is this thing called a question mark "?" that is used to denote a question. Even rhetorical questions require one.

Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Re: Creationist Derail From Cliff Swallow Evolution

Who is online