Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Would anyone like to see pictures of my bumhole?

I think you should just assume that the answer is "yes" and randomly send pictures of it to guys you've just met on the internet.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I think you should just assume that the answer is "yes" and randomly send pictures of it to guys you've just met on the internet.

Some asshole wants to see pictures of your asshole.

Probably. I was gay-bait in my prime.

I'm sure the portly, beardy, middle aged to old white men in Cabela's still want to bum you.

I guess talking about bum holes is the natural progression of a thread with so many ass-backwards arguments from ignorance.

Blackadder wrote:Liars for Jesus keep coming assurance chien back for punishment from proper scientists and keep having their arses handed to them on a platter. Sad fucks.

Hello,
I do not really understand what you mean!
I hope this is not so sad because it concerns Jesus!

Ok!
Thank you!
Goodbye!

Although if you're looking to insure your French Poodle, I guess that was useful.

kalys004 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Liars for Jesus keep coming assurance chien back for punishment from proper scientists and keep having their arses handed to them on a platter. Sad fucks.

Hello,
I do not really understand what you mean!
I hope this is not so sad because it concerns Jesus!

I do not really understand why you:

1. Chose to edit my post that you quoted.
2. Added some random URL link that has no bearing on the topic.

When you explain that, I might be able to respond to your question.

Blackadder wrote:I do not really understand why you:

1. Chose to edit my post that you quoted.
2. Added some random URL link that has no bearing on the topic.

When you explain that, I might be able to respond to your question.

Pst. It's called click-baiting. A form of viral marketing. Your quoted post was edited so that people, acting on good faith to help a newbie out, would be tricked into clicking it to find out what (seemingly) you were talking about -- since they'd be less suspicious of links in a post by an established forum user. A nasty bit of connivance.

Greyman wrote:

Blackadder wrote:I do not really understand why you:

1. Chose to edit my post that you quoted.
2. Added some random URL link that has no bearing on the topic.

When you explain that, I might be able to respond to your question.

Pst. It's called click-baiting. A form of viral marketing. Your quoted post was edited so that people, acting on good faith to help a newbie out, would be tricked into clicking it to find out what (seemingly) you were talking about -- since they'd be less suspicious of links in a post by an established forum user. A nasty bit of connivance.

Ah! Thank you for the explanation. That should be a banning offence I think.

I think it's a bit weird that the fake edit would consist of the name of the website the alleged shill is trying to promote. OTOH, I fell for it and clicked.

The other question is why someone would think this is a fertile source of Francophones looking for pet insurance.

The sort of people who post click bait spam of this sort, only care about getting their links promoted, usually because they're paid to post these links by hook or by crook. The above devious example of their tactics was probably borrowed from creationists to begin with.

I'm still getting that Dead Set feeling.

A very old thread. The Creotards are really at it still with this Lenski business. I could use a little help here for an upcoming debate. Blue Butterfly? Do we have a Bat Signal equivalent for the butterfly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmiexNBj5I0
Standing In Poop.
My understanding of the citrate metabolism is short but growing. A citrate antiporter gene was duplicated without it's regulatory prefix. Creos' call this "loss of information" or "loss of specificity". The second has some merit but seems odd. The first does not when you consider a duplication.

Never let the term 'information' be used unless it is rigorously defined.

Then then then then
Then the ten hen

Loss of "information" produces more "information".

As for 'specificity' - I imagine this is another word game. We can't simply port over words without functional meaning as an explanation about something so particular as how genes work. The concept itself needs to be validated first.

Fenrir wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I'm not sure I can be entirely exhaustive without spending some considerable effort on it, but looking at this picture JJ cited:



I can confidently say that I can see dozens of anatomical features that are shared between the Chacma baboon and the A. afarensis skeleton that are not shared by the dog... in fact, in comparative terms, the similarities between the two primates are only comparable in number to the anatomical differences between the primates and the canine.

So we're clearly in need of a detailed conversation about anatomy if JJ - with his special magical sight - 'sees' more similarity between the baboon and the dog than between the baboon and A. afarensis. Perhaps we can settle once and for all whether naive eye-balling of pictures really does indicate that scientific specialism is defunct as JJ has previously argued.

Anyone want to bet whether JJ's going to rely on the supposedly 'self-evident' quality of a picture to supersede any substantive discussion? I guess the only way we might be able to tell is if JJ is conspicuously coy about getting into specific details here.

Yebbut both the dog and the baboon are quadrupedal.

So they look more similar from a distance.

The greater the distance the betterer the similarity.

From the moon they look fucking identical.

And that's what bauplan means amirite or amirite.

Checkmate athiests!!1!

Never mind what that pic would look like from the moon, look at it on the monitor where I meant it to be viewed. It came from a post that I accidentally destroyed by pressing <Edit> instead of <Quote>,where I meant to show the benefits of comparing body plans, in the face of Spearthrower’s strenuous efforts to stop me from using “bauplan”.

Your trademark scoffing misdirection following Spearthrower’s efforts are a first reason to carry on sniffing.

Secondly, pics that compare body plans are more useful than words like “quadrupedal”, which have provoked hypothetical answers to questions like “Why are humans bipedal?” When you compare baboon bauplan with hominid, considered as competing species in the same environment, then you are looking at real data. And the comparison matches what happened in the world: the African biome effectively compared these contrasting body plans and found that both worked.

Ideology comes in with that word “special”, whose status in ideology is revealed by atheists intentionally spelling it wrong, to imply that people who think humans are special are too stupid to spell.

I added a couple of elements to that pic and shuffled it. The primitive chordate bauplan (a) below shows how the scheme of mouth at the front, anus at the back has been retained (except in hominins (f)). As the animal moves forward it meets the environment at the front end, eats what it needs, and shits out what it doesn't at the back. And near the front part of the mouth of the dog and primates are the canines, whose use is to turn live things into dead things.

Spearthrower said he could see “many” anatomical differences between baboon and canines. As is typical for him, he didn’t tell us of any of them. Well for me, the striking difference is in what lies behind the canines of baboons and dogs. I once kept a male chacma skull on my desk, When I first looked at the molars behind the massive canines the impression was so strong I felt for an second like crying; they were like human molars, but smaller. Strikingly different from dog carnassals. That showed me that whereas the dog eats what it kills, baboons kill and then eat quite different things. And what baboons eat isn’t much different from what we eat.

There has been a lot of talk here about how those baboon canines don’t signify much, and they are the outcome of between-male competition for the possession of the females. I argue that view is just part of a drive to tell the human origin narrative where the only actors are other humans. What I want to bring up now is that if I consider myself as part of the environment, then it’s very striking that I react strongly to those canines, whether in a dog or in a baboon. If it’s a dog I will scratch around for a stick to threaten it with. Because I am a hominin: that faculty to use a hand held weapon is what makes sense of the apparent divergence in bauplan from proconsul to hominin as distinct from the path from arboreal monkey to baboon.

Compare the images above: what made it adaptive for proconsul to adapt to hominin rather than to baboon? (Though I’m not confident about that proconsul image).

This is quite the funny turn JJ... it's not even in the right thread.