Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Because I say so.

:facepalm:
Whether or not any other of your comments should earn you a place in the "stupidest thing" thread is debatable, but this has to go in there.

How do you know they are the samse species in the first place? You assume they are. How do you know they are?

Why don't we go back to the ultimate question: How do you know that anything is what you assume it to be?
In all seriousness though, a starting point would be probability. Hell, not even creationists debate the point that they are indeed the same species. In any case: You find a few fossils, all very nearly the same age. They are morphologically almost identical, they lived at the same place, the same time, etc. What else could they be but the same species?
And saying "they could look the same" doesn't work either, because we can actually distinguish between true dogs and their (from the skeletal form) almost identical marsupial counterparts.

No. You simply see fossils in the ground. You do not know what direction they are evolving into. Putting them on a piece of paper, and lining them up how you think they are evolving, and connecting them with lines, is not what happens in nature. You don't know that that actually happened.

You have absolutely no idea how palaeontology works, do you? First of all, we can see at what time they got into the ground, so we DO know the direction. Secondly, you don't simply put them " on a piece of paper, and lin(e) them up how you think they are evolving". You don't just "think", you have to have evidence as to why you think that they're in this sequence and not a different one. That's why your silly "horse instead of Tiktaalik" wouldn't work.
It is now obvious that just a Detective doesn't "know" what happened, he has clues to figure out what went on. In just the same way we use clues to figure out what went on.

No. All of those point to my theory of Invisible Pink Unicorn being true! Unless you can show otherwise.

A very cute try. Like I said, it is entirely possible that we were tricked by some God(ess), but even if that is the case all of the available evidence points towards evolution in exclusive detail.

And if those facts do indeed agree with what you call your "Theory of (the) IPU", then you agree 100% with evolution, you just call it something else.

And dendochronology goes back how much?

Roughly 11,000 years. That's why we can use it to confirm that C-14 works.

Okay, HOW did we know that?

How did we know... that X is older than Y? Well you've already answered that: Because of the geological column. Where you made the mistake is that you equated absolute to relative dating.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Where the hell are experiments supposed to be performed? They are done in the lab, and anything that happens in the lab can also happen in the nature. Besides, one of the articles talked about it happening right now in stars. Thus, in pure nature.

I mean, if you don't expect lab experiments, then you can't accept ANY lab experiment EVER done. And that would mean that what Lenski did with his bacteria doesn't count. Yup, let's throw out all lab experiments ever produced.

Not what I said. Next time, read what I said carefully. I didn't say that we should throw these experiments out because they were conducted in laboratories, but rather because the occurrences don't happen in the real world but are exclusive to laboratories.

For example:

Rhenium-187 is a more spectacular example. 187Re normally beta decays to 187Os with a half life of 41.6 × 109 y,[5] but studies using fully ionised 187Re atoms (bare nuclei) have found that this can decrease to only 33 y. This is attributed to "bound-state β- decay" of the fully ionised atom , the electron is emitted into the K-shell (1s orbital), which cannot occur for neutral atoms in which all low-lying bound states are occupied.[6]

About your Oklo paper: Berillium is not used for radiometric dating, therefore irrelevant. Also note the conclusion of the Oklo paper on 40K!

From all of our experiments on 40K, we have found no evidence that its electron-capture
decay rate is dependent on the chemical environment. Any possible deviation (Δλ/λ) is < 1%.
Thus, the basis of the 40K/40Ar dating technique remains secure.

I actually used that argument before, and I have been shown that this is better explained by instruments being effected by the radiation itself. So I do not stand by that anymore.

Show me.

In one of the experiments the decay rate was increased by a billion fold.

I've quoted that particular one above. It " cannot occur for neutral atoms in which all low-lying bound states are occupied."

More details please.

I've already given them to you, stop ignoring them.

The phylogenetic tree, the fossil record, DNA evidence, Atavisms, Vestigial structures, etc. I'm a perfect example of evolution, as I have one more vestigial structure than people usually have: I can wave my ears.

Here. We see evolution happening. We can see the traces that it left. That is how we know that it did, as a matter of fact, produced the biodiversity on earth.

What's this supposed to be?

March 2, 2011 - Nonlinear deterministic equations in biological evolution

I'm not looking at videos. You tell me why a horse wouldn't fit there.

I've already told you three times. Because the underlying structures would not permit it, if evolution is true. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you'd know this. I've already tried to dumb this down to your level as far as possible, so I don't really see a way to make this any easier. I'll try it again: (Please note that this is a metaphor. I don't think that you'd be able to grasp the actual biology.)
Imagine that you've got a photo album of John F. Kennedy on your desk. Every day, one picture of him is taken, at exactly the same angle. I'm giving you the albums for the years when he was 40 and when he was 45. What I want you to do now is predict a possible, likely picture that could fit at his 42nd birthday.
Would you agree that a picture of George W. Bush would NOT fit there? Of course you would, because no known biological mechanism would be able to account for such a change.
Would you agree that neither a picture of a 10 year old Kennedy nor that of a 46 year old would fit there? Of course you would.
In just the same way, a horse wouldn't fit there. There is no known mechanism that would account for a sudden change from Panderichthys to a horse and then to Acanthostega. They are so radically different that evolution could not possibly account for it. Tiktaalik on the other hand is that perfect transition, with just the right mutations to fit in between the two. The video explains it quite nicely and you'd do good to watch it, because as I've said, it's the actual discoverer of Tiktaalik who talks about it.

You mean something like this?

The picture didn't work for me, but I found it in the end. So in case other people are having trouble, here it is:

That's cute, a platypus. It's not a blend of two modern creatures though.

I have no reason to find it. Evolutionists kept saying that evolution was true, even before they found Tiktaalik. Finding it or not didn't change anything.

Utter bullcrap. You're not looking for it because you know that it doesn't exist. Evolution WAS true long before Tiktaalik, Tiktaalik merely added another picture to our album. It explains a lot about the transition from non-amphibians to amphibians, but it wasn't needed to "prove" evolution because it was already proven a million times.

Perfectly meaningless statement. A single cell has no underlying structure to evolve arms or legs. Yet according to you, it did evolve that, since single cell evolved to a human. So according to you, structures can be gained.

Idiotic statement. Evolution merely changes already existing features. There are additions or subtractions, but never something radically new. Let's take the wing as an example. The wing isn't anything new, it's merely a changed arm.

The only reason you see them as not fitting is because you are not used to them. You only see dogs having dog features, and elephants having elephant features. But if a creature evolved to have something in between a dog and an elephant, then that's just what it would be, and then you would not be claiming that its a mix. Because dogs and elephants would not exist, but this other animal would. Furthermore, by your definition, other animals can then also be called a mix of all different features.

I've already explained this, but whatever... Do you see the tips of a tree fusing? (While we're on trees: They can fuse with different trees, apparently, but that's not what I'm talking about.)
Also, I'm not talking about something that lays eggs and yet is a mammal. I'm talking about this:

You don't seem to understand what a blend of two different creatures is.

Does evolution have enough probabilistic resources to transform a T3SS into a flagellum?

Yep.

Phylogenetics itself does not tell you that all life is connected by common descent. It is an assumption based on similarity of the creatures.

The mere fact that we CAN construct a phylogenetic tree! If everything were designed, we wouldn't expect to see that.

Not all fossils are found like that. And guess, what, that fetus died! So I guess it had no children that lived. And that's the end for that lineage.

So my question remains. How do you know, that any of those fossils had any children? Some probably did. Because animals are alive today, and someone must have gave birth to them. My question is, how do you know its the animals you find in the fossils record.

It isn't necessary that this exact same fossil was our great-great-...-grandpa. It's equally possible that it was our great-great-...-grandpa's uncle, cousin or whatever. You seem to miss that we only find individuals in the fossil record, yet evolution happens to species. Therefore, the fossil itself is irrelevant for the LINEAGE, it's only relevant to show the SPECIES place in the tree of life.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Ok so then you agree that predictions can be made without math (you admitted to at least three types of predictions above: making shit up, mathematical modeling, logical consequences of hypotheses).

Making shit up is obviously not a prediction. Deriving an event with math is a prediction. Logical deduction is also a prediction.

Is "prophesy" a prediction?

What do you say about this prediction:
It will rain tomorrow.
As you can see there's no math involved in this prediction, yet it's still a prediction. If every time I said "it's going to rain tomorrow" it actually did rain the following day, and every day that I didn't say "it's going to rain tomorrow" it didn't rain, it would be a damn accurate prediction and indicate I had some model (potentially not mathematical, maybe it's just a trick knee that hurts before rain comes) that predicts rain. Yet there's no math involved.

Unless you can show me what you used to come to that prediction, its a story. You either have to calculated the weater pattern, or use a logical deduction form your theory. If you don't have any of those, its not a prediction but a story.

Of course it's a story, it's a story I made up to illustrate a point: there doesn't need to be math to make predictions, nor does there need to be math to have an accurate and predictive model (e.g., a trick knee that's always right (the model of course being that impending rain makes the knee hurt)). If I say "my knee predicts it's going to rain tomorrow" it's a prediciton; if it's true a statistically significant amount of the time, then "knee hurts implies rain" is a predictive model. Oh certainly it's not the best model, but I'm mostly just pointing this out in case there are any people still reading your drivel, because it's blatantly obvious that "I predict X" is a prediction (whether right or wrong).

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greeitngs,

No. You simply see fossils in the ground. You do not know what direction they are evolving into. Putting them on a piece of paper, and lining them up how you think they are evolving, and connecting them with lines, is not what happens in nature. You don't know that that actually happened

Fascinating argument - given your being a believer in Fomenko's "New Chronology".

His dating chart is falsified by the fact it can be "read" in either direction. Much like you're arguing with the fossil record.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I submit that tsarp needs to understand that he who makes a positive claims has the burden of proof since he's making an error in his arguments where he stresses that if something is claimed it must be true unless proven otherwise and if he isn't able to understand this, this thread, as I've concluded, is meaningless since he will not accept anything that is contradicting his imaginary claims.

 

[porcupine]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Tsar's still around getting his ass handed to him I see. Funny stuff...
Dragan Glas, Inferno and others.. your patience is legendary.

One still has to wonder just how impressed these supposed "onlookers" are that Tsar is attempting to impress. :roll:

I've been following Tsar's posts with grisly fascination since he first appeared on Ratscep.

If I were to tell you what I really thought of him and his creationist ideas I would probably break the speed record for being banned. Suffice it to say I think that if this sort of irrationality and unreason gains an increasing foothold in the world, it will undermine the fabric of civilization.

Of course, I should also mention how much I have enjoyed seeing his canards being thoroughly and eruditely debunked, both here and on Ratscep. It's been a treat, well done everyone.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Tsar's still around getting his ass handed to him I see. Funny stuff...
Dragan Glas, Inferno and others.. your patience is legendary.

One still has to wonder just how impressed these supposed "onlookers" are that Tsar is attempting to impress. :roll:

I've been following Tsar's posts with grisly fascination since he first appeared on Ratscep.

If I were to tell you what I really thought of him and his creationist ideas I would probably break the speed record for being banned. Suffice it to say I think that if this sort of irrationality and unreason gains an increasing foothold in the world, it will undermine the fabric of civilization.

Of course, I should also mention how much I have enjoyed seeing his canards being thoroughly and eruditely debunked, both here and on Ratscep. It's been a treat, well done everyone.

Oh my God, he's in Ratskep? Fuck, that forum is populated enough to be hard to browse in, now with csar's nonsense all over the place, it'll be even harder.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I believe he was banned, CosmicJoghurt?!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I believe he was banned, CosmicJoghurt?!

Kindest regards,

James

Oh, that's a relief.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

You have been arguing throughout that scientists have been unable to predict anything using the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary biology comprises a multitude of scientific fields: evolution is not just a stand-alone "theory".

Throughout you've been claiming that predicting transitional fossils between two other fossils is not a prediction.

It may very well be a prediction. But there is no reason for me to think that it was based on evolution.

What do you think is predicting a transitional fossil? Logical deduction based on morphological traits! Ergo, a prediction.

No, because its not a deduction, but an induction how an organism would look like. It does not have to look like that. It could look differently.

So, you're God now, are you?

Nope.

Not if you know anything about Paley and Darwin, they're not.

Darwin explained away Paleys argument. But Dembski explained away Darwin's.

So, with what parts of Paleyianism do you agree?

That a design requires a designer. As I said above. Darwin did give an explanation that was in that time better than Paleys, but now we have a better explanation than Darwins, that shows us that design still requires a designer.

We're talking in the everyday sense when we say "the train is moving" - if you choose to turn introspective and ask "What is truth?", then we're not going to get anywhere. are we?

Are you telling me that philosophy is useless, and is going nowhere?

"Similarity" in what?

And it's not "my" assumption - or, indeed, "a" assumption: it's a evidence-based logical deduction of scientists.

Similarity in shape. Or similarity in DNA sequences. Okay, I see you don't get this. Tell me, do you know what formal logic is? If you do, then tell me what kind of a statement is the statement that similarity implies common descent. Is it an IF THEN statement, or an IF AND ONLY IF statement?

Are you claiming a.) or b.)
a.) Similarity ⇒ Common Descent
b.) Similarity ⇔ Common Descent

A number approaching zero.

If I said that the probability of a flagellum evolving is P - > 0, what would you say?

Definitions are based on a commonly-recognized, independent source.

Such as dictionaries - I defy you to find a dictionary that defines someone who accepts evolution as a Muslim - or vice versa.

If that were true then nobody would be able to make a first definition since it would require an independent source for it.

You should - both are well-worth the time to watch. You'll learn so much!

I'm not interested in your stories.

The definition of "Science" was - and rightly so - decided in a court-of-law: ID and Creationism are not Science.

Says you.

His dating chart is falsified by the fact it can be "read" in either direction. Much like you're arguing with the fossil record.

I'm not going to start arguing about this topic, since I doubt you know anything about it. Anyway, there is nothing to falsify here. It is fact that dates of rulers of different nations exist. The only thing you have to do is to put them on paper and compare them.

It is different with animals since we do NOT know when they lived or if they are related. Humans can interbreed with other humans. You do not know if that is true for fossils you find in the ground.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Whether or not any other of your comments should earn you a place in the "stupidest thing" thread is debatable, but this has to go in there.

I'd nominate all your posts!

Why don't we go back to the ultimate question: How do you know that anything is what you assume it to be?
In all seriousness though, a starting point would be probability. Hell, not even creationists debate the point that they are indeed the same species. In any case: You find a few fossils, all very nearly the same age. They are morphologically almost identical, they lived at the same place, the same time, etc. What else could they be but the same species?
And saying "they could look the same" doesn't work either, because we can actually distinguish between true dogs and their (from the skeletal form) almost identical marsupial counterparts.

Listen professor, you are increasingly showing your cluelessness. Similarity does not imply that fossils are of the same species.

Look at the damn picture. These animals are distant, very distantly related according to evolution. Yet they converged to a similar morphology. Thus, even though they seem similar, they are NOT the same species. Thus, they can't interbreed. Either start acting more politely, or you are getting a one way ticket to my ignore list.

You have absolutely no idea how palaeontology works, do you? First of all, we can see at what time they got into the ground, so we DO know the direction.

How do you know that?

Secondly, you don't simply put them " on a piece of paper, and lin(e) them up how you think they are evolving". You don't just "think", you have to have evidence as to why you think that they're in this sequence and not a different one. That's why your silly "horse instead of Tiktaalik" wouldn't work.

And what evidence do you have professor?

A very cute try. Like I said, it is entirely possible that we were tricked by some God(ess), but even if that is the case all of the available evidence points towards evolution in exclusive detail.

And if those facts do indeed agree with what you call your "Theory of (the) IPU", then you agree 100% with evolution, you just call it something else.

Or, its you who agrees with my theory of teh Invisible Pink Unicorn, yet you call it differently!

Roughly 11,000 years. That's why we can use it to confirm that C-14 works.

Okay, so its worthless for millions of years dating, right?

How did we know... that X is older than Y? Well you've already answered that: Because of the geological column. Where you made the mistake is that you equated absolute to relative dating.

And how do you know the ages of the layers?

Not what I said. Next time, read what I said carefully. I didn't say that we should throw these experiments out because they were conducted in laboratories, but rather because the occurrences don't happen in the real world but are exclusive to laboratories.

Who say they don't happen in nature?

For example:

How does that imply that it can't happen in nature?

About your Oklo paper: Berillium is not used for radiometric dating, therefore irrelevant. Also note the conclusion of the Oklo paper on 40K!

It doesn't matter if it is used or not, the point is that decay rates can vary.

Show me.

Its on another forum. I've been banned there, so I'm not going back.

I've quoted that particular one above. It " cannot occur for neutral atoms in which all low-lying bound states are occupied."

SO?! It can ahppen for modified atoms. Nobody claims it can't happen in nature.

Here. We see evolution happening. We can see the traces that it left. That is how we know that it did, as a matter of fact, produced the biodiversity on earth.

Where? How? Why?

I've already told you three times. Because the underlying structures would not permit it, if evolution is true. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you'd know this. I've already tried to dumb this down to your level as far as possible, so I don't really see a way to make this any easier. I'll try it again: (Please note that this is a metaphor. I don't think that you'd be able to grasp the actual biology.)

What underlying structure would not permit it?

Imagine that you've got a photo album of John F. Kennedy on your desk. Every day, one picture of him is taken, at exactly the same angle. I'm giving you the albums for the years when he was 40 and when he was 45. What I want you to do now is predict a possible, likely picture that could fit at his 42nd birthday.
Would you agree that a picture of George W. Bush would NOT fit there? Of course you would, because no known biological mechanism would be able to account for such a change.
Would you agree that neither a picture of a 10 year old Kennedy nor that of a 46 year old would fit there? Of course you would.
In just the same way, a horse wouldn't fit there. There is no known mechanism that would account for a sudden change from Panderichthys to a horse and then to Acanthostega. They are so radically different that evolution could not possibly account for it. Tiktaalik on the other hand is that perfect transition, with just the right mutations to fit in between the two. The video explains it quite nicely and you'd do good to watch it, because as I've said, it's the actual discoverer of Tiktaalik who talks about it.

Why? You are saying that it couldn't happen. The mechanism you are proposing for a change to Tiktaalik is random mutation and natural selection. Why are you sure that Tiktaalik is possible, but a horse is not?

The picture didn't work for me, but I found it in the end. So in case other people are having trouble, here it is:


That's cute, a platypus. It's not a blend of two modern creatures though.

It has a beak liek a duck, and a body like a marsupial.

Utter bullcrap. You're not looking for it because you know that it doesn't exist. Evolution WAS true long before Tiktaalik, Tiktaalik merely added another picture to our album. It explains a lot about the transition from non-amphibians to amphibians, but it wasn't needed to "prove" evolution because it was already proven a million times.

You still haven't provided any evidence to begin with.

Idiotic statement. Evolution merely changes already existing features. There are additions or subtractions, but never something radically new. Let's take the wing as an example. The wing isn't anything new, it's merely a changed arm.

And what underlying structure did a cell change so that people could have arms?

I've already explained this, but whatever... Do you see the tips of a tree fusing? (While we're on trees: They can fuse with different trees, apparently, but that's not what I'm talking about.)
Also, I'm not talking about something that lays eggs and yet is a mammal. I'm talking about this:

There is no reason why this could not evolve. Eyes have also allegedly evolved mulatiple times. So have other features. Why couldn't an animals evolve all those things again?

Yep.

Yep what? An image is not a calculation. I need you to tell me how many probabilistic resources did evolution have to produce a flagellum from teh T3SS? Simply showing me a hypothetical path is not enough. How do you know that evolution could take this path?

The mere fact that we CAN construct a phylogenetic tree! If everything were designed, we wouldn't expect to see that.

Why?

It isn't necessary that this exact same fossil was our great-great-...-grandpa. It's equally possible that it was our great-great-...-grandpa's uncle, cousin or whatever. You seem to miss that we only find individuals in the fossil record, yet evolution happens to species. Therefore, the fossil itself is irrelevant for the LINEAGE, it's only relevant to show the SPECIES place in the tree of life.

I'm not saying that is is necessary. I'm asking you how do you know, that any of those fossils, or some other animals that looked like that are the ancestors of ANY living animal today.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Is "prophesy" a prediction?

If you take people who read from cards seriously then yes. If you actually take them as seriously as scientists, then, yes certainly. I'd call that making shit up.

Of course it's a story, it's a story I made up to illustrate a point: there doesn't need to be math to make predictions, nor does there need to be math to have an accurate and predictive model (e.g., a trick knee that's always right (the model of course being that impending rain makes the knee hurt)). If I say "my knee predicts it's going to rain tomorrow" it's a prediciton; if it's true a statistically significant amount of the time, then "knee hurts implies rain" is a predictive model. Oh certainly it's not the best model, but I'm mostly just pointing this out in case there are any people still reading your drivel, because it's blatantly obvious that "I predict X" is a prediction (whether right or wrong).

But that would be a prediction based on a previous event. Thus, a logical deduction, which is also fine. But if you want to be precise and tell me how much will it hurt, you should quantify the feeling of pain and predict is specifically using math.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Is "prophesy" a prediction?

If you take people who read from cards seriously then yes. If you actually take them as seriously as scientists, then, yes certainly. I'd call that making shit up.

Of course it's a story, it's a story I made up to illustrate a point: there doesn't need to be math to make predictions, nor does there need to be math to have an accurate and predictive model (e.g., a trick knee that's always right (the model of course being that impending rain makes the knee hurt)). If I say "my knee predicts it's going to rain tomorrow" it's a prediciton; if it's true a statistically significant amount of the time, then "knee hurts implies rain" is a predictive model. Oh certainly it's not the best model, but I'm mostly just pointing this out in case there are any people still reading your drivel, because it's blatantly obvious that "I predict X" is a prediction (whether right or wrong).

But that would be a prediction based on a previous event. Thus, a logical deduction, which is also fine. But if you want to be precise and tell me how much will it hurt, you should quantify the feeling of pain and predict is specifically using math.

So then you agree predictions can be made without math. So why do you keep insisting that evolution needs math to make predictions, when you already agree that predictions can be made without math?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

So then you agree predictions can be made without math. So why do you keep insisting that evolution needs math to make predictions, when you already agree that predictions can be made without math?

Because Tiktaalik is a specific prediction not made from evolution. Its not a logical deduction from the theory, and its not a mathematical prediction. Thus, its a made up story.

There is no logical deduction that leads us to conclude that from evolution we should find a Tiktaalik. And if you don't have that, you should use math. Nobody did that also. So you have nothing left. Thus a Tiktaalik, from whatever it was predicted, it was not evolution.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

So then you agree predictions can be made without math. So why do you keep insisting that evolution needs math to make predictions, when you already agree that predictions can be made without math?

Because Tiktaalik is a specific prediction not made from evolution. Its not a logical deduction from the theory, and its not a mathematical prediction. Thus, its a made up story.

There is no logical deduction that leads us to conclude that from evolution we should find a Tiktaalik. And if you don't have that, you should use math. Nobody did that also. So you have nothing left. Thus a Tiktaalik, from whatever it was predicted, it was not evolution.

Except it is: since we have fossils of these organisms and these other fossils of these other organisms in these regions at these time periods, and we're pretty sure that one population was the ancestor of the other, if evolution is a good model of how things actually happened, then we expect a population (to have been fossilized) that looks exactly like a cross between the two (populations) at a specific time period in a specific region. And TA-DA it was there, exactly as the scientists expected (in the specific area, with the specific age, and the correct half and half morphology). Simple logical consequences of the theory.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Look at the damn picture. These animals are distant, very distantly related according to evolution. Yet they converged to a similar morphology. Thus, even though they seem similar, they are NOT the same species. Thus, they can't interbreed.

Fortunately, biology is more sophisticated than looking at pictures and saying "Well gee doc, them pictures sure look the same to me, guh huh!" This is a fairly extreme example of convergent evolution which really just goes to show how not-random natural selection is.

Okay, so its worthless for millions of years dating, right?

Yes, it is, that's why no one uses C-14 for things that are millions of years old. We have other methods for that. What's your point?

]And how do you know the ages of the layers?

Radiometric dating

SO?! It can ahppen for modified atoms. Nobody claims it can't happen in nature.

Where on Earth do you find naturally occurring plasma? It'd be a real nice solution to our energy crisis.

Where? How? Why?

Everywhere. Mutations and natural selection. Why not?

It has a beak liek a duck, and a body like a marsupial.

It has neither. A platypus is born with teeth which fall out leaving bony plates for chewing; a duck filters with its beak and swallows food whole. A duck bill is made of keratin; a platypus bill is made of flesh and is a sense organ for finding prey in riverbeds. It's body is that of a monotreme, not a marsupial.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

All quotes from Tsar unless stated otherwise.

Listen professor, you are increasingly showing your cluelessness. Similarity does not imply that fossils are of the same species.

I've specifically addressed this issue. Your inability to read makes the "Listen professor..." statement quite a stupid one.

And saying "they could look the same" doesn't work either, because we can actually distinguish between true dogs and their (from the skeletal form) almost identical marsupial counterparts.

Remember how I was talking about the underlying structure? This is exactly it! We can distinguish between true Wolves (Canis lupus) and their marsupial counterparts. (Thylacinus cynocephalus)

They are easy to tell from a true dog because of the stripes on the back but the skeleton is harder to distinguish. Zoology students at Oxford had to identify 100 zoological specimens as part of the final exam. Word soon got around that, if ever a 'dog' skull was given, it was safe to identify it as Thylacinus on the grounds that anything as obvious as a dog skull had to be a catch. Then one year the examiners, to their credit, double bluffed and put in a real dog skull. The easiest way to tell the difference is by the two prominent holes in the palate bone, which are characteristic of marsupials generally.

Look at the damn picture. These animals are distant, very distantly related according to evolution. Yet they converged to a similar morphology. Thus, even though they seem similar, they are NOT the same species. Thus, they can't interbreed. Either start acting more politely, or you are getting a one way ticket to my ignore list.

I don't care about your ignore list. If the best you can do is to plug your ears and shout "lalalala" then there's no reason for me to try and teach you anything anyway. I'd rather you stop blocking out the evidence, but that'd be a lot to ask, given your track record. I've tried to explain everything you asked of me, but you keep asking the same questions even though I've already answered them.
You will notice that I've already addressed your "problem for palaeontologists" before you even had the chance to bring it up. We can distinguish between true wolves and their marsupial counterparts. It's more difficult with other species, but that is to be expected.

How do you know that?

At what time they got buried? We've talked about this! Radiometric dating!

And what evidence do you have professor?

Your rhetorical "professor" is quite amusing, seeing that I actually am one.
As I've explained already, we look at the morphology of fossils and put them in a line of A "going to" B, B "going to" C, etc. We look at the morphology and time-stamp of the fossil and then we can place it. Going back to Tiktaalik, we notice that Tiktaalik is basal to Acanthostega. How do we notice that? The time-stamp and the morphology.

Or, its you who agrees with my theory of teh Invisible Pink Unicorn, yet you call it differently!

Whatever you call it, it's still evolution. The large public calls it evolution, we've agreed that "changes in allele frequencies over time" is the definition of evolution, not the "theory" of the IPU.
Conclusion 1: You are the one who's calling it differently.
Conclusion 2: You agree with evolution, yet you've been conditioned not to.

Okay, so its worthless for millions of years dating, right?

Exactly. I've never stated that we'd use dendrochronology or C-14 to cross-reference dates from the K-Ar or Ar-Ar method. I specifically said that we could cross reference different dates by using different methods and if the dating is correct, they should both come up with the same methods. I then gave you the example of dendrochronology (something even Creationists accept works) and C-14. They overlap, so you can cross-reference the dates these two give and figure out if your method is acceptable. The same works for other dating methods too.

And how do you know the ages of the layers?

Through absolute dating methods. Depending on what rock you're looking at, you'd use different dating techniques.

Who say they don't happen in nature?

The paper specifically mentions it! Didn't you read it?

How does that imply that it can't happen in nature?

It specifically says so! I even made the relevant part bold, but you just read straight over it. Here's the relevant part again:
which cannot occur for neutral atoms in which all low-lying bound states are occupied.

It doesn't matter if it is used or not, the point is that decay rates can vary.

Well no, that's specifically NOT the point. The paper specifically concludes that there is no threat to the K-Ar technique (the important part) and that scientists can go on using it. Here, once again, is the important part from the conclusion:

From all of our experiments on 40K, we have found no evidence that its electron-capture
decay rate is dependent on the chemical environment. Any possible deviation (Δλ/λ) is < 1%.
Thus, the basis of the 40K/40Ar dating technique remains secure.

Its on another forum. I've been banned there, so I'm not going back.

I won't take your word for it. Show me or leave it be.

SO?! It can ahppen for modified atoms. Nobody claims it can't happen in nature.

That's specifically the point: Yes, people DO claim that it can't happen in nature.

Where? How? Why?

Where: All around you. Every animal you can ever see has an evolutionary history, you only need to look. Instead what you're doing is taking one glimpse and conclude "Goddidit".
How: You could be more specific, because I'm not exactly sure what "how?" is referring to. I'll take it that you mean "how do we know".
I'm going to quote (and translate) from a standard German University guide to Biology.

Chapter XII, Diversity and Evolution of living beings, Section 12.1: Evidence for Evolution

(...) Morphological-anatomical evidence
If you compare the composition of organisms, you can infer their relatedness. There are some pitfalls to this Method.

Homology
Homologous organs can be traced to a common blueprint, even if adaptations have driven them to diverge from one another.
We can often create "progression-rows" for there organs, going from simple to complex, but there are also regression-rows. Homologies allow us to infer the relatedness of organisms because they are the result of an originally identical genetic information. Homology can be proven by three different homology-criteria:
a) Criteria of location: Structures of different Organisms are homologous if they are in the same location in a similar Gefà¼gesystem (I don't know how to translate this word, the internet gives me "structure-system")
b) Criteria of specific quality: If complex organs are similar in regard to specific attributes, they are homologous even if they don't take up the same location
c) Criteria of Continuity: Differently stored or in their gestalt radically different organs are homologous if they are connected via intermediates, that show a gradual transition from one structure to the next

That's merely the first page. It follows up with anaglogies, Vestigial Organs, Atavisms (note that for none of the aforementioned are fossils needed!), Transitional fossils, Evo-Devo, Biochemical and molekular Biology.
So how do we know? By using any of these tools to look at the world around us.

As to "why?"... Why what? Be specific. Why is evolution "responsible" for the biodiversity? Rephrase that question to get your answer: Why is Gravity responsible for objects falling "down"?

What underlying structure would not permit it?

Yes. Finally!

Why? You are saying that it couldn't happen. The mechanism you are proposing for a change to Tiktaalik is random mutation and natural selection. Why are you sure that Tiktaalik is possible, but a horse is not?

Didn't you read what I wrote? Here are two skeletons: That of a Horse and that of Tiktaalik plus kinship.
Picture of a Horse's skeleton

We'll now use two criteria to look at whether the horse could fit there. They are similar to the ones about homology, btw. Are the structures in the same structural location? No. Look at where (for example) the head of the horse is in relation to where Eusthenoptron's or Panderichthys's head is. They are nowhere near each other.
Is there a gradual change from Panderichthys to Equus to Acanthostega? No.
We could stop right there, the horse doesn't fit. However, let's look at Tiktaalik.
Is (for example) its shoulder-bone anywhere near that of Eusthenoptron's or Panderichthys's? Yes, clearly. Sadly, I can't find the slide from 00:44:50, but take a look at just that slide there. Notice how the diagram already shows that the bones are in the correct location. Now let's look at whether or not there is a gradual continuum of transitions between Eusthenoptron and Acanthostega. Note that E. has a shoulder bone that's nearly vertical and A. has one that's looking to the right and also has this concave form. The intermediary, Tiktaalik, is this in between, gradual continuum we're looking for. It has the bone in the right place, it's already at almost the same angle as A. but doesn't yet have that concave build.

It has a beak liek a duck, and a body like a marsupial.

And a bat has wings, does that mean that it's a blend? No. Once again, I've already provided you with the answer, yet you choose to ignore it. Having a beak does not make a platypus a blend. Let's try this again: Take a piece of paper and draw a ^ on it. (Basically a pyramid without a base.) What you're looking for is a species that would exist on the base of that pyramid. (The empty side.)
Platypus, on the other hand, has merely adapted something that other creatures have also adapted. That's perfectly alright with evolution.

You still haven't provided any evidence to begin with.

Your inability to see evidence, even if it's dancing in front of you with Dobby's tea cosy on, is not my problem. I've talked about the Lenski et al. experiment, I've talked about Vestigial Organs, Atavisms, the phylogenetic tree, evidence from DNA, etc.

And what underlying structure did a cell change so that people could have arms?

First, multicellular life.
Second, a gradual hardening of certain structures, gradually becoming bones.
Third, the change of these structures from something like what Eusthenoptron had to something TIktaalik had to something Acanthostega had to... and so on.

There is no reason why this could not evolve. Eyes have also allegedly evolved mulatiple times. So have other features. Why couldn't an animals evolve all those things again?

There's no reason why... a Crocoduck could not evolve? But you're wrong! First of all, eyes have always evolved slightly differently. Read Chapter 5 of "Climbing Mount Improbable". Because of their genetic differences, we'd expect them to be quite different from each other. (As indeed they are.)
Ignoring all morphology, we'd now have to have a staggering amount of luck for evolution to take exactly half the way that the crocodile went and exactly half the way a duck went. This is akin (but when it comes to the probability, not even close) to you going back in time and performing every single action in exactly the same way that you've performed it.
But now comes the gravest problem: A crocodile's morphology won't fit on that of a ducks. A crocodile's inner apparatus is so radically different from that of a ducks that it could not possibly work. I've already explained above (See Tiktaalik vs horse) why the morphology is impossible. A very quick look at the organs of a duck will show us why they can't mix with those of a crocodile.
Here's what ducks eat:

Ducks exploit a variety of food sources such as grasses, aquatic plants, fish, insects, small amphibians,[3] worms, and small molluscs.

Here's what crocodiles eat:

They feed mostly on vertebrates like fish, reptiles, and mammals, sometimes on invertebrates like molluscs and crustaceans, depending on species.

Problem? I rather think so.

Yep what? An image is not a calculation. I need you to tell me how many probabilistic resources did evolution have to produce a flagellum from teh T3SS? Simply showing me a hypothetical path is not enough. How do you know that evolution could take this path?

1) We've already shown how calculations are not needed.
2) Your definition of "probabilistic resources" is something nobody can produce nor could produce. Basically, you're asking for a photo album of George Bush, where one picture is taken every day of his life. That's not how it works. We've got maybe ten, possibly a hundred pictures to show, but not the 23725 pictures you want.
3) How do we know that evolution could take this path? It's a gradual series of modern transitionals that we've got. It's exactly what we'd predict. The question is rather: How can you NOT see that it took this path?

Why?

Take anything designed. For example, take auto-mobiles. Now construct a phylogenetic tree that is objectively verifiable. You will find out that you can't. That's because anything designed doesn't have to fit into a tree of relatedness. Why not? Because a designer can simply take a designed object like a car and change everything inside of it.
For example, the Volkswagen beetle. It was nearly the same for most of the time, then it was discontinued, brought back a few years later but now everything except the hull was different. Is it now more closely related to the Beetle because of its hull or is it more closely related to any other auto-mobile, based on its interior?

I'm not saying that is is necessary. I'm asking you how do you know, that any of those fossils, or some other animals that looked like that are the ancestors of ANY living animal today.

And I've already answered you.
1) We are, as a matter of fact, alive today.
2) We have found many creatures in the process of having a baby, so we know that they weren't sterile.
3) We can construct a phylogenetic tree based on modern DNA, showing that we did indeed inherit things. This way we can show that the great apes are our immediate ancestors.
4) We have the fossils (and I've already shown above how that works) to show that there is a gradual continuum going from ancient creatures to living modern creatures.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

So then you agree predictions can be made without math. So why do you keep insisting that evolution needs math to make predictions, when you already agree that predictions can be made without math?

Because Tiktaalik is a specific prediction not made from evolution. Its not a logical deduction from the theory, and its not a mathematical prediction. Thus, its a made up story.

There is no logical deduction that leads us to conclude that from evolution we should find a Tiktaalik. And if you don't have that, you should use math. Nobody did that also. So you have nothing left. Thus a Tiktaalik, from whatever it was predicted, it was not evolution.

xxx xxx xxx

Whether Tikataalik was predicted by the modern theory of evolution.

Ans: Yes

Basis: The first and second quotes below.

Conclusion: Tsarp, again, is proven wrong.

xxx xxx xxx

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=49

Yesterday the NOVA special: Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial, aired on PBS. It was an excellent documentary of the Kitzmiller vs Dover intelligent design trial of 2005. The producers did not attempt false balance, but they did allow the ID proponents to defend themselves in their own words. I think this was very effective, actually. The ID proponents condemned themselves much more than the commentary of others could have. They mostly whined about how they are being treated unfairly, and about the dominance of "Darwinism" in public education.

In the documentary, as in the trial, and as in science itself, the defenders of evolution were able to marshal actual science and evidence. The documentary focussed briefly on one piece of evidence that was not presented in the trial because it was discovered during the trial, making the point that even as the trial was ongoing further evidence was coming in to support the fact of biological evolution. This new evidence was the amazing transitional fossil called Tiktaalik.

Creationists often charge that there are no transitional fossils, and evolution predicts that the fossil record should be chock full of them. The claim is patently false, and stems mostly from a straw man concept of what a transitional fossil would be. (The most ridiculous example of this is Ray Comfort's crocoduck.) A transitional form is not some incredible monster. In fact all species are transitional, in that they occupy a morphological position between related species. Fossil transitional species may occupy a position between an ancestral species or group and their descendants.

Creationists counter the existence of clear transitional fossils, like Tiktaalik, by saying that evolutionists can't prove the forms are actually transitional. Archaeopteryx is a bird with teeth (and a lizard-like tail, and reptilian breast bone, etc.), that doesn't make it transitional between theropods and birds. They completely miss the implication of the existence of Archaeopteryx, and Tiktaalik, and Ambulocetus (transitional between terrestrial mammals and whales) and the many other clearly transitional fossils. That is, evolutionary theory predicted their existence, and their discovery therefore is validation for evolution.

ID proponents know nothing of predictions, because ID does not make predictions. That is primarily why ID is not science, it cannot be tested by making falsifiable predictions.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik, a "fishopod," beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

Tiktaalik had limb-like fins, with elbows and wrists, able to partly support it's weight but not strong enough to walk fully out of the water. He lacked gill supports which gave him a more flexible neck, and he had a stronger rib cage for more support is shallow water. Tiktaalik also shows signs of both gills and lungs.

What do the ID stooges have to say about this? Well, they fall back on the old ploy that you can't prove Tiktaalik is actually transitional, a real ancestor of a later species. This is true, but completely irrelevant. They even quote mine from evolutionary biologist Henry Gee to make this point. Steve Reuland has the whole story, including Gee's angry response to the ID crowd for misrepresenting his position.

Evolution-deniers portray the evolutionary interpretation of fossils as "just so" stories, evolutionists just imposing an evolutionary story on whatever fossils they happen to find. Again, what evolution-deniers miss (out of what combination of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is a true mystery) is that evolution cannot explain any possible fossil discovery, and some discoveries could potentially falsify evolution (horses in the Cambrian strata).

And what Tiktaalik represents is an excellent and well-documented example of the fact that evolution doesn't just explain what we find but predicts what we should find. Evolutionary theory predicted that something like Tiktaalik should exist in Devonian strata, and it's discovery is a dramatic and powerful confirmation of that evolutionary prediction.

Kudos to Nova for a fine program and for further exposing the vacuous and transparent nonsense of intelligent design and its hapless supporters.

http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/04/wittlessly-quote-mining.html

Wittlessly Quote-mining

Following the discovery of the fish-tetrapod intermediate Tiktaalik, the creationists seem to be in full damage control mode, making a lot of nonsensical claims that only serve to show us that no fossil evidence, no matter how compelling, could ever convince them of the reality of evolution.

Ed Brayton dissects the latest from the Discovery Institute's Johnathan Witt, which possibly breaks all records for lack of coherence. I'll leave it to Ed to put the smack-down on Witt, but I though I'd highlight something I found pretty amusing. In support of his rather bizarre claim that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil but not really a transitional fossil, Witt quote-mines (second-hand, naturally) from paleontologist Henry Gee:

The lead-in article contains a classic Darwinian prop, an illustration of a series of fossils purporting to show a Darwinian progression from one form to a fundamentally different one. A passage from Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution might have been written as a direct response to this illustration except that the book was written years before the picture (though, if you read chapter six of the book, you'll see that problems of chronology do not always hinder Darwinists in their story-telling efforts):

Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature... [wrote:] "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" ... and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we have only a fragmentary fossil record, and we're dealing with millions of years -- what Gee calls "Deep Time" -- the job is effectively impossible... Gee concludes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

And yet the icons of evolution must be found where they can be found. As the news article in the current issue of Nature puts it, "The newly discovered fossil, Tiktaalik roseae ... might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx."

Here is the illustration from the lead-in article, which Witt doesn't bother to show his audience:

Of course, no one argues that the progression of fossils in which Tiktaalik has been placed represents an actual ancestor-descendent relationship. The fact that they are presented in cladistic form (as a branch off of the main line) makes explicit the fact that Tiktaalik, for example, should not be considered the actual ancestor of Acanthostega (though it possibly is), but rather represents an earlier related form. The actual ancestor of Acanthostega probably would have looked a lot like Tiktaalik, but was most likely a different species, owing to the fact that we have only a handful of fossil specimens available out of hundreds or thousands of species that must have existed. By way of analogy, I have Irish ancestry, but digging up the grave of an ancient Irishman would not mean that I had found my literal ancestor. A distant relative to be sure, but I would have no way of knowing if he were truly my ancestor.

What paleontologists do argue is that Tiktaalik exists as a transitional form that we expect to see if tetrapods evolved from fish. In the above quote, Henry Gee's point is that it's impossible to deduce strict ancestor-descendent relationships (e.g. species A evolved directly from species B) on the basis of scant fossil evidence, which is pretty obvious when you think about it. That doesn't mean that relationships can't be established (e.g. species A is more closely related to species B than either is to species C), and it certainly doesn't say anything about a given fossil being morphologically intermediate between other groups. Witt, and by extension Jonathan Wells, are badly misrepresenting Henry Gee. Even if it weren't obvious from knowing a little about systematics, I can figure this out by consulting the words of... Henry Gee. He has become so frustrated at this persistent misrepresentation, he finally felt compelled to speak out:

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...]

I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.


I don't know about you, but the minute someone issues a public statement completely slamming me like that, I quit citing that person in support of my viewpoint. It's just a little thing I like to call honesty. If he had never said otherwise, you could at least pretend like this person's viewpoint supports yours, but when he comes out and says "no fool, you're wrong," you should probably defer to his judgment. Maybe Witt thinks he knows more about what Gee means than Gee himself does. If that's the case, Witt should have provided a little disclaimer saying, "by the way, Henry Gee disagrees with our interpretation of his words and calls us moral reprobates in the process". That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. But nah, why let a little thing like the author get in the way of your interpretation?

It's been about four and a half years now since Gee issued that clarification, and Witt is still happily abusing his words, as if Gee never said anything. If anyone wonders why the Discovery Institute people irritate the living hell out of the scientific community, this is why.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Mod note:

Царь Славян, this is just to inform you that you have now been banned.

Your time under the bridge is now up. It was long overdue, of course, but there was still some fun to be had, so...

If you want a specific reason, I suppose we could just chalk it up to - and there really is no way around this - stupidity.

You have shown the maturity, civility and obtuseness of a petulant, obstinate little child.</SIZE></COLOR></B>

Darwin explained away Paleys argument. But Dembski explained away Darwin's.

<B><COLOR color="#00FF00"><SIZE size="180">

This quote just shows that your stupidity has come full circle. You dismissed all evidence that countered your position out of hand, eventually all sources and all scientists, too. Yet somehow, Dembski and his work is still A-OK! For some unexplained and inexplicable reason, his philosophical armchair ramblings are still good enough for you, instead of the practial use, predictive and experimentative power of real and proper science.

And well, since you stopped looking at ALL sources offered to you (or stopped pretending to look, even), any illusion any of us might have had that you could see reason is gone. I don't think it was ever there, though, as it was clear from the start that you were nothing but a science-denying creationist, bias-filled to the brim, bent on propagating your particular, emotionally-driven, entirely faith-based world view.

Now, before you find the next forum to pester with your pseudo-scientific nonsense, take some time to honestly (if you're capable of anything of the kind) reflect upon your total failure here, and why it is that noone subscribes to what is basically a result of a psychological self-defense mechanism within yourself.

Thanks for the entertainment, now sod off.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Additional mod note:

In case people are wondering as to the "real" reasons of Царь Славян's ban, here is a short list of some of his transgressions, complied some time ago:


Insults - Against a mod, no less:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=102199#p102199

More insults, although sneakily enough made "passively":
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=102577#p102577

Disrespectful, bordering insulting:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=102686#p102686

Disrespectful, and ironically demanding evidence, when he doesn't present it himself:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=102836#p102836

More disrespect (against a mod):
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103044#p103044

And again, same deal:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103128#p103128

Aaand again:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103138#p103138

And again:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103469#p103469

More insults (although granted, in the face of some insults, too):
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103543#p103543

Basically insulting, plus being trollish, I'd say:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103578#p103578

Disrespectul and insulting again:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103987#p103987

Disrespect:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=104136#p104136

Disrespect en masse:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=104275#p104275

Disrespectul and trolly:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=104278#p104278

Ignoring people for no real discernable reason (which, while allowed, is indicative of trollish or at the very least highly counter-productive behavior):
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103029#p103029

Then there is the fact that he has ignored a myriad of people (I think I counted 13), again, indicative of his trollish behavior.

And here, one of the major points, basically an admission of trolling and counter-productive behavior:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103032#p103032

I'll quote it here:</COLOR>

Sorry I haven't even read any of that. I stopped at the part where you ASSUMED I tried to make myself taken seriously by YOUR kind. No, you see, I don't take YOUR kind seriously. I'm here to have fun. And to show the people who are not posting here, yet are reading the forum just how easy is to take on a group of people of your kind. Even though your kind has such a high opinion of itself, yet actually doesn't know anything else past high school level science.

And yes, he is also highly disrespective there, and actually insults ALL of us massively (the bold section.)

This is just in one of his threads (not even the huge one).


Looking at the rules, we can see this line:

Generally being excessively crude, irritating or attempting to troll for lulz may get you banned at the discretion of the moderators.

<COLOR color="#00FF00">

This was, of course, enough to get him banned ages ago, but the consensus among the mods has to let him stay a bit for entertainment value.

Apologies for all who would have preferred to have him around longer, but he was a waste of time.

Let's all take a while to thank him for the entertainment, and for bringing some new users onboard.


Thank you.

Edit:
P.S. I nearly forgot... He also managed to insult a mod via PM. Class act!

 

[Salphen]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Somebody needs to say it.

...and nothing of value was lost.