Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

This tricky subject causes much confusion among atheists

The accumulation of small heritable changes within populations over time.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#121  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 5:02 pm

newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#122  Postby scott1328 » Jul 21, 2018 5:04 pm

newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

Unfortunately, I didn't think to make a note of the post numbers, or copy them into my computer. All I remember for sure is that, yesterday, he posted that he thought there were many different imaging eye types around from which he thought that the vertebrate eye could have evolved. In other words, he was trying to imply that the vertebrate eye might have been derived from any of them, and I implied that this is false. However, today, I noticed that that entire discussion had vanished. (Which means that the mods must have removed it.)

If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8691
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#123  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 5:05 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?
Last edited by newolder on Jul 21, 2018 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#124  Postby scott1328 » Jul 21, 2018 5:06 pm

They are in the cabal as well
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8691
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#125  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 5:12 pm

scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

[aside]Now that this thread as gone so wildly off-topic, I might as well mention that, in fact cdesignpropentsist and newolder were the main FTL-ers, with newolder storming out of the debate (throwing insults at Albert Einstein on the way, IIRC), while cdesgn... merely fell silent.[/aside]
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#126  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 5:15 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

[aside]Now that this thread as gone so wildly off-topic, I might as well mention that, in fact cdesignpropentsist and newolder were the main FTL-ers, with newolder storming out of the debate (throwing insults at Albert Einstein on the way, IIRC), while cdesgn... merely fell silent.[/aside]

[aside]
Recently, I asked you to continue that discussion in the relevant topic*. Why did that not happen, exactly?

* http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physi ... l#p2640865
[/aside]
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#127  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 5:20 pm

newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:...If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.

Then maybe they were removed before you got to see them. (It was a post by RS and my response to it.)

Without further evidence, this will make no progress. Have you asked the site administrators about these two imagined posts?

ETA: When you wrote about "RS's recent posts" you meant 1 post?

OK, probably only one by RS, but I replied to it, making two posts that had to be removed. However, I don't know if he responded further, because the next thing I knew, both posts were gone.
BTW this episode not imagined, newolder, they WERE deleted (as is the mods' right and power).
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#128  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 5:46 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Sendraks wrote:

The thread reeks of your imaginings that people have hidden agendas.

It isn't imaginatioon, Sendraks, it's a rational conclusion,

False, it's either delusional or dishonest straw-man, as I've repeatedly made it clear why I respond the way I have.

That's your opinion,

No David ,that is a FACT. You see, unlike your delusional mind reading powers, I actually KNOW my own motivations and reasons for posting.
So no, this is not a matter of opinion.

DavidMcC wrote: and I suppose you're entitled to it. However, that does not make it correct.

Correct, the fact that I know what my motivation is and have repeatedly made it explicitely clear, does.
But that won't stop you from insisting on your own fantastical straw-men, apparently. :roll:

DavidMcC wrote: mainly from TE's flagrant disregard for the OP topic,

Still hypocritical bullshit David. You pulled your own thread off-topic with baseless accusations and insinuations aimed at interlocutors.

I think it is helpful to other readers to realise that certain posters do not konw, or care anything about the OP topic. [/quote]
A complete non-sequitur to the point you're responding to.


DavidMcC wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:plus his obsession with attempts to draw an insult out of me.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Because you're obvious trolling this much to distract from the beatings you keep giving your wife. :roll:

Bizarre! Truly bizarre!

That a point goes over your head is, just like so many things, your problem, not mine.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Jul 22, 2018 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#129  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 5:47 pm

DavidMcC wrote:I notice that most of the people currently on-line are guests. What must they think of a site that contains such absurd posts as yours! :dunno: :shock: :crazy:

I hope I'll never be so blind to my own posting behaviour as you are David.
Heck, I hope you'll one day learn better. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#130  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 5:49 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
theropod wrote:Just what, exactly, have I assumed? Did I assume you, David, placed an arbitrary cut off date on tracing the origin of the vertebrate eye? No, that was you. Did I lump all atheist into a single group and then use a well know evolutionary biologists as an example of misguided thinking? Nope, that was you again. Did I address you personally, or quote any of your posts in this thread? Nope, I commented on the topic, and provided my own thoughts independent of yours.

This obsession with me is becoming quite tedious. No matter the content, or formulation, you distort my posts to make it all about you. Just fucking stop. I really find your posting behavior to be increasingly disturbing, and down right irrational. If you actually think I spend my time mulling over ways to chip away at your fantasy version of reality you have become a candidate for institutional help. This latest claim that some of my posts in this thread have been removed is a clinical example of pure delusion.

Just so you can rest easier, and maybe dismiss some of your fabricated demons, I will never again comment on any position you may take on any subject on this forum. I am making a public vow to ignore anything and everything you post. Those memebers aware of my posting history, which includes cases of self punished suspensions, can relate to you that such a vow will be honored. So, continue to misrepresent, belittle and attack me at your pleasure. I will no longer play a role in this insanity.

RS

Your posts are now as bizarre as TE's.

Take a look in the mirror David, before you start accusing others.

DavidMcC wrote: And yes, your recent erroneous posts (and my replies) have been removed, and it can only have been done by a mod.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

DavidMcC wrote:
I can only assume that you two are tryig to convince me that this is some kind of mad-house, and that I will snap, throw insults at you, and get suspended, or even banned.

Yes, we're well aware of your self-destructive need to cling to conspiracy and persecution complexes. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#131  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 5:50 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

It is David’s belief that moderators remove posts in order to make him look bad.

Actually, no, it was likely more to save RS from looking bad. There's a subtle, but real difference.

Nope, they're fundamentally the same: delusions derived from your mind David.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#132  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 5:51 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
scott1328 wrote:...Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.

[aside]Now that this thread as gone so wildly off-topic, I might as well mention that, in fact cdesignpropentsist and newolder were the main FTL-ers, with newolder storming out of the debate (throwing insults at Albert Einstein on the way, IIRC), while cdesgn... merely fell silent.[/aside]

You might as well mention your wife-beating habits while you're at it. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#133  Postby Thommo » Jul 21, 2018 8:35 pm

lol.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27165

Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#134  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Jul 21, 2018 11:45 pm

This thread has been a hoot to follow.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13469
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#135  Postby Macdoc » Jul 22, 2018 2:32 am

masochistic streak eh? :roll:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#136  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 23, 2018 12:41 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#137  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 23, 2018 12:53 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#138  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 23, 2018 12:57 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.

Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#139  Postby newolder » Jul 23, 2018 1:18 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread has been a hoot to follow.

Maybe, as long as you aren't too bothered about the biology of the vertebrate eye!

You still haven't answered newolder's question David.

Which question would that be? If I have forgotten a question, that may be because you have been buried it in tons of verbiage.

Here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/evolu ... l#p2642766
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#140  Postby BlackBart » Jul 23, 2018 1:19 pm

scott1328 wrote:
Welcome to the FTL cabal. You will be receiving your membership packet shortly.


He should have received it before it was sent out.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12199
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution & Natural Selection

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest