Remember Stevebee?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#241  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 27, 2010 12:07 pm

And of course, there's the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens, which first appeared amongst captive bred specimens back in the 1970s.

In the case of Betta splendens, the Siamese Fighting Fish, there is a trade-off in the wild between the effects of predation and the effects of sexual selection by females. Males have longer dorsal and anal fins than females, and these play a role in the courtship and mating of these fishes. One role that those longer fins play is during the mating embrace itself, where the long and extended anal fin of the male is used to capture the female's eggs as they are released, which are then quickly scooped into the mouth of the male. The male then blows the eggs into the bubble nest that these fishes construct for the purpose of rearing their young. Any decent tropical fish magazine will cover the breeding of Betta splendens in some detail, and indeed, Betta splendens is frequently the first bubble nest breeding labyrinth fish tackled by novice aquarists extending their remit. But I digress.

Longer fins allow the male to put on a more impressive courtship display, and consequently, females will preferentially select mates with large, impressive fins. However, once the fins grow beyond a certain limit, they start to act as an impediment to escape from predation, and therefore there is a dynamic balance struck in nature, between the selection pressure exerted by predators to grow fins within a constrained limit, so that males may escape predation, and the selection pressure exerted by females, who mate preferentially with males possessing large and showy fins.

However, in an aquarium environment, the predation pressure is absent, and thus, the sole selection pressure acting upon the males is sexual selection by females. In such an environment, male Betta splendens will develop larger and larger dorsal and anal fins, and indeed, this is what we have seen happen during generations of aquarium breeding. For comparison, here is a male Betta splendens that conforms to the wild type with respect to fin development (these are known in the aquarium hobby as plakat Bettas):

Image

Compare this with a typical aquarium long-finned Betta:

Image

As can be seen, the effects of sexual selection are pretty substantial once predation pressure is removed! Which once more demonstrates that whether a mutation is deleterious or advantageous frequently depends upon the environment and the niche being occupied - a mutation that would be deleterious in one environment can be advantageous in another, and vice versa. For example, mutations for pigment loss in fur, resulting in an animal being white in appearance, would be deleterious in a temperate rainforest, where such an animal would stand out from the environment like a sore thumb - small animals of this sort would be easy meat for predators, and large predators would be easily evaded by prey. The same mutation taking place in an animal living on a polar ice cap, on the other hand, confers an immediate advantage over those retaining brown fur. In the case of the fishes above, predation acts as a brake upon overexpression of long fins driven by sexual selection, and thus wild male Betta splendens are constrained to a certain maximum fin length, but in an environment where the predation pressures acting as a brake are removed, sexual selection drives fin length development to whatever extremes are physically and metabolically supportable by the males.

Indeed, when experiments are performed, and female Bettas are given a choice of mates of different fin sizes, the females exhibit a significant preference for the males with the large, showy, impressive fins, and the males with shorter, less impressive fins are left on the shelf as it were. It's not difficult to construct the requisite experiment: all one needs to do is construct an aquarium with appropriate dividers, ensuring of course that the male cells are fitted with opaque side walls so that the males cannot see each other (they're not known as Siamese Fighting Fish for nothing!) and have nice transparent windows allowing the females in the undivided part of the aquarium to swim freely and examine all the males in their display cells. Then, pop a range of males in the cells, add the females to the open section, and let the females engage in a little cheesecake window shopping as it were ... it won't be long before you see the females starting to pay attention to the big, showy males with long flowing fins, and ignoring the males with the short fins. :)

Consequently, we have above an experimental demonstration of the power of sexual selection - picky females shaping male phenotype by their mating choices. If funds could be allocated to the requisite experiments, I suspect it would not be difficult to demonstrate that if wild Betta splendens are placed in a pond where they are free from the action of predators, and excess stock is removed on a purely random basis, eventually, the male fin length will be seen to increase over successive generations.

Now we come to the Double Tail mutation. When a fish inherits this mutation, it develops two tails, arranged in 'over-under' shotgun arrangement. The fish doesn't just have a large, split tail fin: when dissected, these fishes have two sets of caudal peduncle bones, and thus genuinely have two tails. Moreover, the mutation responsible has been demonstrated to be a single-factor Mendelian recessive gene by appropriate mating experiments. Let's compare our single tailed aquarium Betta above with a Double Tail specimen, shall we?

Image

Image

Now the Double Tail mutation also results in an extra wide dorsal fin, and in fine specimens, the fins are truly spectacular to behold. Now, we can perform a second experiment: take a selection of single-tail males with nice, long fins, put them in our "cheesecake shopping" aquarium setup, and let them compete with a Double Tail male for female attention. When the females go window shopping, you'll find that they're most impressed by that big showy Double Tail male.

Now once again, amongst wild fishes, the Double Tail mutation would be deleterious, as it would impact upon male escape from predation, but in an aquarium environment, females select Double Tail males preferentially if given a choice between ordinary single-tailed males and Double Tail males. Likewise, if a suitable pond environment could be set up, and some Double Tail males let loose in there, I suspect that even though the Double Tail mutation is recessive, it would, over time, spread through the population once the females got to work exerting their selection pressure on the males.

Once again, no magic needed in order to understand all of this. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#242  Postby Rumraket » Jul 27, 2010 12:32 pm

Interesting post Cali, which also got me thinking about the potentials of doing selective breeding experiments with fish, perhaps in order to among other things, demonstrate something more along the line of speciation often claimed impossible by creationists and ID-proponents.

When I say selective breeding I should perhaps clarify a little that having scientists involved in directly selecting fish to breed with may not be an absolute requirement. It may indeed be enough to simply make artifical environments for the fish, with strong selective pressures for some desired trait we might be interested in demonstrating be able to evolve.

Consider a simplistic proposal for such an experiment : Artifical environment with a strong selective pressure for the gradual evolution of land-based locomotion ability in fish. I imagine you simply place the food the fish are to eat in hard to reach areas in an aquarium with competition for being able to reach that food between the fish, lesser able ones dying out from a lack of nutrition, simply losing out to more able ones.
As the population of breeding individuals slowly develop whatever minor phenotypical expressions making them more competent food-reachers, you simply increase the difficulty in the artificial environment, again putting strong pressure for the further development of the ability to reach the nutrition.

Does this sound feasible? I don't see why not myself in my immediate thoughts. I can imagine some hurdles like the prospect of inbreeding if the populations sizes are too small, or the inability for something definitely "alien" to develop within meaningful timeframes, even at this strong, artificial level of selection. Any thoughts?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13149
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#243  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 27, 2010 1:17 pm

Aiming to select for land traversal ability in a fish that doesn't yet have this is a bit ambitious to put it mildly, but there are other traits you can select for in an appropriate environment. Here's one idea you can run with that would probably yield measurable results in something like 50 generations or so, and all you'd need is sufficient space and funds to run the setup!

Set up an aquatic environment that's very long. At each end, create some rockwork for some Cynotilapia afra or other Mbuna type fish to set up territories upon. At one end, you arrange for the rocks to be light coloured (e.g., limestone), and at the other end, you arrange for dark rocks to be used. Introduce a population of Cynotilapia afra to each end of the pond.

Now the reason you choose these fish, and this setup, is because Cynotilapia afra and other Mbuna-type Cichlids are strongly territorial, and do not stray very far from rock screes. So if you have your rock screes separated by a large open gap, they won't cross it. Consequently, you'll have two isolated populations, which will duly set about breeding. Of course, you'll have to keep the light coloured rocks scrubbed of algae so that they stay light, but this shouldn't be a problem if you set things up appropriately. Now, give these fishes 50 generations or so, and you should start to see the fishes that live around the light coloured rocks becoming progressively lighter in colour with each new generation, whilst those that live over the dark rocks gravitate toward a dark colour scheme. Similar experiments have been performed with guppies, but Mbuna have behavioural characteristics that make them a much more interesting model organism. :)

Keep those populations isolated for long enough, and you could end up with a situation in which your two populations are no longer interfertile with each other, in which case you've got yourself a speciation event in your pond, and you have the material for a Nature paper!
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#244  Postby Rumraket » Jul 27, 2010 1:34 pm

Regarding the land traversal thing, alright.. of course it is ambitious, but I don't mean nessecerily the fish, atleast within a human lifetime, being able to actively walk around on land. I imagine something more along the lines of minor adaptations to the Pelvic and Pectoral fins, or the musculature therearound after the first generations of selection have taken place. Something that helped them excape from significantly shallower waters.
Of course, the actual ability to ultimately crawl up on a beach, or maybe just in water so shallow that it doesn't cover their entire body, is a very long-term goal. But I can't help feeling that this might still be attainable with very high, artificial selective pressures within, perhaps a couple of human lifetimes.

Regarding your evolution of camouflage example, I can easily imagine this is feasible, but wouldn't it require an actual selective pressure on the diversifying populations to actually filter out individuals not showing signs of adapting to the colour of their territory? I guess the sexual selection going on between the breeding individuals is screening for this?
Of course, this is unfortunately not the kind of speciation that I was looking to "demonstrate" with my hypothetical example.. not that I'm under any illusion that actual creationists would be open to be convinced by anything other than doctrinal assertions. Anyway.. I have a train to catch... will write more laters I think.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13149
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#245  Postby eddie.zdi » Jul 27, 2010 6:16 pm

In line with Calli's colour speciation proposal, one minor point, without a predator being included in the mix there will be no pressure for colour change to occur. As such, and I hope I'm not intruding I would make a different suggestion. Take a large square tank place rock formations in each corner. Now I have gone for four here because I think it would lead to a more interesting experiment, I would also introduce a few extra factors to allow for more widely varied speciation. So lets introduce our four rock formations, A, B,C and of course D. Now lets make A a control, standard rock formation, and standard feeding procedure, expected result, fish remain unchanged. B, lighter coloured rocks and lets drop the food some way from the safety of the formation at the same time every day (to allow the predator to become familiar), expected result, the fish will not only become lighter but due to the nature of the food delivery should become faster. C darker rocks, food placed at base of tank, expected result darker colour plus the fish devolop a tendency towards a lower depth. D, this is the one that I would be very interested in, bright green rocks, create an artificial barrier that allows the fish to see and observe the predator but no interaction, expected result, bright green fish perhaps, but most definately fish without basic fear reflexes to the presence of a predator. Now the reason I choose these three sets of conditions are because they help demonstrate how fish as varied as the marlin (speed) and the angler fish (depth) can share a common ancestry, it would also be a wonderful demonstration of the factors that led to the dodo being so spectacularly useless.
"Science is the lawman of ignorance" - Me 1984 - ????
User avatar
eddie.zdi
 
Name: Daniel Edwards
Posts: 178

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#246  Postby Blitzkrebs » Jul 27, 2010 7:16 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Keep those populations isolated for long enough, and you could end up with a situation in which your two populations are no longer interfertile with each other, in which case you've got yourself a speciation event in your pond, and you have the material for a Nature paper!

Any way of doing this with brine shrimp? :mrgreen:
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 30
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#247  Postby hackenslash » Jul 28, 2010 2:25 am

User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21431
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#248  Postby Shrunk » Jul 28, 2010 10:29 am

hackenslash wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolution-debunked-human-population-for-dummies-t10608-20.html#p374151


Unbe-fucking-lievable! If Steve had stuck around, I was actually planning on asking his opinion on some TruthfulChristian or NephilimFree videos. It seems if someone says, "2+2=5, the earth is flat, and evolution is a lie", they're a genius in Steve's eyes.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#249  Postby Rumraket » Jul 28, 2010 10:33 am

One also has to wonder at the fact that SteveBee has a 100-page blog, completely and entirely dedicated to bashing science in general and the theory of evolution in particlar, spreading every known creationist and ID-proponent canard, yet still claims he's just a true skeptictm and is not religious.
Yeah... riiiight.

Somehow I find that hard to believe. Why would someone so manifestly obsess over the same subject, in the exact same way, and use the exact same arguments for their position and against that which they obsess over, as the religious do, and still claim to not be of that specific position. It just doesn't add up.

It seems to me that him claiming he's not religious is just him lying in an attempt to gain some sort of credibility by not admitting to the religious basis for his objections, in contrast to the fake "skepticism" he peddles.
"I'm not a racist... I'm not, I just hate people of a different race".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13149
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#250  Postby CADman2300 » Jul 28, 2010 11:54 am

Stevebee just recently updated his blog and thought it would be fun to insult the intelligence of everyone who visits with this hysterical conspiracy rant.

http://evillusion.wordpress.com/why-i-s ... ctrinated/

He was told by a detractor that accusing people of being "indoctrinated" as a final line of defense did little more than make him look desperate but it's obvious that he never took those words seriously and this article is proof of that. To protect the sanity of everyone here, I decided to post the link instead of the entire article which is quite short and at no point does it make even a remotely coherent statement, much less a convincing argument.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#251  Postby Rumraket » Jul 28, 2010 12:44 pm

Yes, he has this weird upside-down approach to the subject where everyone else is under an obligation to "prove" evolution to him by answering his endless amounts of strawman questions. Completely missing the fact that just because he can't figure out how evolution accounts for the origin and subsequent evolution of biological entity X, it doesn't logically follow that noone can.

He never even poses a flat question like, "How could X have evolved?" it always come with some factually incorrect, underlying assumtion about how evolution could evolve entity X by route Z?
Every time, he has to squeeze in that "by route Z" assumption, which is the very fact that keeps demonstrating he is purposefully misrepresenting evolution.

He says he's intelligent, I actually think he is. It takes an actual understanding of the real evolutionary postulates to consistently misrepresent them without exception.

If someone was just plain ignorant of some arbitrary scientific explanation, they would at least allow the possibility that the explanation is not what they think it is. Not with SteeveBeee. Now with that new blog page of his you have linked, he has effectively also ruled out the ability for us to tell him why he is incorrect, in that he will now constantly victimize himself with claims of accusations of lack of education or intelligence.

In the very few cases where he has been pressed into even allowing us to answer a flat question, or he mistakenly has asked a question in a fashion that actually fits with evolutionary postulates, he just instinctively reverts to The William Dembski approach to scientific observation and evidencetm: It's never enough.
A common tactic employed by ID propotents when supplied with empirical evidence, is to just revert to flatly proclaiming : It's too impropable to have happened by chance or, that only makes sense in the light of guided design.

I'm beginning to think many of the individuals we get here and I see involved in ID/creo vs Evolution debates around the net have all taken some special class in debating evolution where they learn a number of reflex responses. It's always the same crap they peddle, in the same order the arguments come, and the same response they all have to the refutations.

1. Ask for evidence.
2. Proclaim impropability.
3. Assert design.
4. Move a step down(as in closer towards a complete subatomic account of events) in detail level and repeat the list in the same order.

I swear, it is the exact same approach every time. There must exist some Dembski/Behe approved manual to manufacturing scientific controversy they are all attending courses in following somewhere. Perhaps you need to be a trusted member of some Discovery Institute daughter organization or something. It's the same level of crap they have employed in the past.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13149
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#252  Postby Varangian » Jul 28, 2010 1:10 pm

I think we can safely ignore Stevebee; his ideas about evolution is a dead end on the evolutionary tree of fucktarded evasions of reality. His attitude is similar to that of flat-Earthers - one could take them into space and make them look through the window, and they would still claim it is a trick.
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 54
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#253  Postby CADman2300 » Jul 28, 2010 2:41 pm

Varangian wrote:I think we can safely ignore Stevebee; his ideas about evolution is a dead end on the evolutionary tree of fucktarded evasions of reality. His attitude is similar to that of flat-Earthers - one could take them into space and make them look through the window, and they would still claim it is a trick.


And I wholeheartedly agree. But it becomes a challenge to ignore people like this who don't know that they're better off just giving up and finding a different topic to rant about. SteveBee lacks credibility and has no authority to coin terms like "evolutionaut" or improperly use terms like "bio-system". He certainly has no authority to dismiss papers without actually reading them or dismiss hard facts.

We should probably focus our energy towards the real threats to evolutionary biology. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, Institute of Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis. These pseudoscience pushers are the bigger threat because they have money and political connections. Then there are other evangelical ministries that support the same YEC crap that need to be the focus because they too have the power to influence their large sub-layman audience.

Fortunately, we can rest easy knowing that they often have a next-to-zero chance when taken to court. Facts are never on their side and as one prominent person once said: "Facts are stubborn things."
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#254  Postby Largenton » Jul 28, 2010 4:46 pm

I'm amused by some of his points on the site:

(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. One great example is that I ask the question about how bio-systems, such as a hepatic system, which had to evolve in a single species, migrated from the original species to all of the other species that then and now have livers. I usually get this answer: “Traits” change and those changes are caused by mutations, and are passed from generation to generation. Additional changes occur, and eventually, through tiny steps over millions of years……..” The writers obviously have no idea about the difference between “traits” which are items such as eye color, height, weight, hair color, and “biological systems”, which includes items such as hepatic systems, vision, auditory systems, musculo-skeletel,….. The evo-responders are on auto pilot. They just spout the answer, because that is what they were taught. There is no thought as to whether the question is answered or not. Push the button, out comes the indoctrination. And this is common beyond my wildest expectations. Intelligent people who must know the difference between “traits” and “biological” systems write as if they don’t.


Yes because Calli really spouts indoctrinated answers about Siamese Fighting Fish which he has bred. Furthermore, I doubt I'm spouting indoctrinated answers when I refer to skeletal data.

(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.


I think it was the fact he boasted about several patents and then when people tried to find what he had, they found nothing that may have been a problem. With this in mind, it is easy for people to claim what they don't have on the net. I could claim I have a PhD and a lectureship in Human Osteology, however, that would be lying. Also, I have noted in another thread that Stevebee apparently considers other people's education as important argumental points. Therefore, scrutinising his own claims and not relying upon authority is giving him the same treatment as he gives others.

(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.


I am not an atheist or agnostic. I believe in an incredibly intelligent Source or Creator, but my beliefs go no further. I have no idea who, where, or what that source really is.


From here

So if he's not religious; how come he believes in a creator? How come he labels himself as not an atheist or agnostic? Therefore, he must be a follower or acknowledge some supernatural deity, making him religious.

(5) You call me dumb names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, fuckwit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from the question. It simply shows indoctrination.


Pot Kettle Black. I remember chihuahua turds...

(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did.


So refer to scientific, peer-reviewed papers by professionals in the field who have better credentials that Stephen is a sign of indoctrination? This is the most illogical bullshit I've seen for ages!
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#255  Postby Shrunk » Jul 28, 2010 4:58 pm

Largenton wrote: So if he's not religious; how come he believes in a creator? How come he labels himself as not an atheist or agnostic? Therefore, he must be a follower or acknowledge some supernatural deity, making him religious.


Never mind the fact that he's tipped his hand by supporting young earth creationism, as noted above by hackenslash.

Pot Kettle Black. I remember chihuahua turds....


So do I.

:waah:

Did you have to remind me?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Remember Stevebee?

#256  Postby CADman2300 » Jul 28, 2010 5:30 pm

It doesn't end with the "indoctrination" rant either. Before that he posted this on his blog.

http://evillusion.wordpress.com/evoluti ... -comments/

He goes over Dr. Miller's refutation of Irreducible Complexity and throws a negative 2-cent piece in wherever he thinks there should be one. It seems like he's basically trying to ruin it for anyone who actually understands Miller's points better than he does and he fails miserably at it too.
User avatar
CADman2300
 
Posts: 485

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#257  Postby OnkelCannabia » Jul 28, 2010 6:02 pm

Latimeria wrote: and at the end of it all you will realize your time would have been better spend slamming a door shut on your genitals.

:rofl:
User avatar
OnkelCannabia
 
Posts: 395
Age: 36
Male

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#258  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 28, 2010 7:36 pm

Oh, indeed, I explicitly asked him to tell us what he actually believes in in a previous post, when he whined about being purportedly "unfairly" characterised as a creationist, but he chose to evade that question. I wonder why? Could this have something to do with my other post about things that exhibit a multiplicity of Anatidae-type behaviours being bona fide members of the Anatidae?

Oh, and the employment of the Dembski tactic covered above, apart from being intrinsically dishonest, is also dishonest because Dembski himself issued a statement about ID purportedly not needing to "go into that pathetic level of detail". So according to Dembski, science not providing him with the world history of every quark in the universe in order to support evolutionary theory means science has failed, but ID merely erecting a blind assertion that a magic "designer" exists, who conjured up the biosphere via a magic, act means ID has "succeeded". Anyone who thinks that this pseudo-argument on Dembski's part rises to the level of being worth the toilet paper it was written on, needs to return to high school and re-take basic science classes.

As for Stevebee, I made the decision to regard him as a charlatan and an ignoramus some time ago, and the content of his posts here have merely convinced me even more strongly of the validity of that decision. We have an individual who purports to have been a practising dentist, yet cannot recognise the power of the research documented in peer reviewed journals in his own purported field, and even worse, was unaware of the existence of that research despite having professional access to the relevant papers that is denied to many here. The idea that such an individual is in a position to refute evolutionary theory, on the basis of that manifest ignorance of research in his own purported field, is an idea I regard with well-deserved scorn and derision.

I'll still bide my time and wait to see if he returns to answer that unanswered question, but something tells me that the probability of having that question answered is even lower than the probability of me being paid a million dollars a time to father the children of Scarlett Johanssen, Emmy Rossum, Keira Knightley and Kate Winslet.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#259  Postby Alan C » Jul 28, 2010 8:07 pm

if nothing else I found it interesting to hear of research towards the possibility of effectively replacing teeth biologically. You'd think a dentist would feel the same way. :scratch:
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 2028
Age: 43
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Remember Stevebee?

#260  Postby eddie.zdi » Jul 28, 2010 9:11 pm

I have a question about Steve that I don't think anyone has asked yet... given that he was once
an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that
can anyone dig up a single piece of evidence of his torrid past of acknowledging reality?
"Science is the lawman of ignorance" - Me 1984 - ????
User avatar
eddie.zdi
 
Name: Daniel Edwards
Posts: 178

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest