Blood Plasma Salinity for r norman
Uncle Davey
I have just checked every post in this thread you (UD) wrote and I
can't find any mention whatsoever of blood plasma salinity. As a
comparative physiologists, I happen to know something about that
subject. So if you have some point about plasma salinity, please post
it and you will get a response. I would greatly prefer you starting a
new thread titled "blood plasma salinity" or something like that.
Don't just change the subject line in a response to this -- news
readers still catalog it under the original subject and there is so
much garbage here (talk origins) that I don't even try to read every
posting.
OK.
My point is that the salinity of plasma of humans and most other animals -
practically every vertebrate - is closer to freshwater than salt water.
This means that in saltwater cells need additional resources to those needed
in freshwater in order to osmoregulate.
My point is, that if evolution did take place, then the sea must have been a
lot less salty than it is now at the time the salinity of plasma became
fixed in the higher animal.
Some people initially agreed with this statement, others disagreed, but
consensus did not get reached before the topic moved on.
That's about it. What is your take on it?
Uncle Davey
AC
That you have asserted a prediction of evolutionary theory that I know no
researcher makes. What's more, you haven't actually justified why any
multicellular organism has to maintain the same salinity levels as the
oceans at any point in their history, or why any organism cannot ultimately
control salinity within their cells or within the organism at large.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:slrnd9hguo.j21....@strawberry.fields.forever...
Which is a nice "cameo appearance" by you, but doesn't address the question
I asked.
Still, always nice to read your comments.
Uncle Davey
r norman
wrote:
>R Norman wrote:
I am leaving the cross posting to soc.singles and free.christians
because you, Uncle Davey, included them. I don't want anyone to even
get a hint that you know what you are talking about or that your
proposition can't be answered. However I can't imagine why anyone in
either of those groups would have the slightest interest in the
subject.
Probably the best written and the earliest popular exposition of the
evolution of the body fluids in the vertebrate animals is "From Fish
to Philosopher" (John Wilkins, take note -- you have lots of finny
competition!) by Homer Smith. I believe it was originally published
in 1953 by Little, Brown. My copy is a special paper edition put out
by Ciba Pharmaceuticals in 1959. The subtitle is "The Story of Our
Internal Environment" and it describes exactly the problem you raise
as well as the evolution of the vertebrate and the mammalian kidney.
Dr. Smith was a noted renal physiologist who spent some 30+ years
studying that particular subject. For more current discussions, see
"Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment" by K. Schmidt-Nielsen,
5th Edition, 1997, Cambridge U Press although I must confess that I
only have the 4th edition, 1990. The subject has not been modified
drastically in the last 15 years. Another excellent source is "Eckert
Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations", by Randall, Burggren,
and French, 5th Edition, 2002, Freeman. That one I do have and have
taught from for many years going back several editions. These two are
probably the most widely used textbooks in Animal Physiology. Many
good introductory biology textbooks, the encyclopedic ones
specifically written for biology majors, also treat the subject.
In order to explain the situation to you, I am afraid I have to go
into quite a bit of background to prepare you for the argument.
Fortunately for me, I am a college professor and lecturing at you
comes quite naturally. Unfortunately for you, if you want to
understand what I am saying, you will have to read all this. Normally
it would take at least a full hour lecture with explanations and
examples and so on. You would also get my atrocious jokes. I will try
to be as brief as I can, but still try to be at least a bit
understandable and to leave out my attempts at humor.
The most important basic fact of physiology to understand is that
osmotic regulation is a really major problem for animals. Animal
cells have no cell wall and cannot withstand an osmotic difference
between the intracellular and extracellular fluid. The intracellular
fluid must necessarily be rather concentrated to maintain its
biochemical and biophysical activity. Hence the extracellular fluid
must be exactly equally concentrated. The specific salts inside the
cell are quite different from those outside, but the osmotic pressure
is the same so that the cells are in osmotic balance. The importance
of the "regulation of the internal environment" , which refers to a
major degree to just this osmotic regulation, was proposed by C.
Bernard in the mid 19th Century and is considered one of the major
landmarks in the beginning of the subject of physiology.
The interface between the inside of the cell and the outside across
the cell membrane is only part of the problem. The other part is the
interface between the extracellular fluids outside the cell, but
inside the organism, (that is, the body fluids) and the external
fluids; fresh or salt water (terrestrial animals are a special case
and are treated separately). There is no special reason why the body
fluids (including the blood plasma) should be the same osmotic
concentration as the external environment except for the very big
fact that it is an enormous metabolic expense to regulate the body
fluids if they are different. Even if you make the external surface
relatively impermeable, the gills are necessarily directly exposed to
the external environment, they have very large surface area and are
extremely permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide. One of the examples
of "incredibly poor design" in animals is our inability to produce a
membrane permeable to gases but not to salts and to water. As a
result, any difference between the body fluids and the environment
means a very large osmotic exchange of water and a diffusion exchange
of salts that must be compensated somehow.
There are basically three ways of living in water. If your body
fluids match the environment, you have no problem -- life is easy.
This is the way virtually all marine invertebrates live. They do have
body fluids virtually the same as sea water. They may have somewhat
different Ca++ and Mg++ concentrations than sea water, but that the
NaCl concentration is pretty close as is the osmotic pressure. Hence
they have an easy life. You might expect all marine creatures to live
this way, but no -- see below.
The second way is to have body fluids significantly more concentrated
than the environment. That is the situation for all fresh-water
animals. Fresh water is so dilute there is no way to allow the body
fluids to match it because that would require the intracellular fluids
also to match it which appears to be incompatible with life. So to
keep the cells happy, the body fluids must be salty, hence must be
more concentrated than the environment. Therefore these animals are
constantly taking in water by osmosis and losing salt. As a result,
these animals never drink and seek a source of salt in their food.
They also have evolved excretory organs (kidneys, in the case of the
vertebrates) specialized in producing a very large volume of urine
with special mechanisms to reabsorb as much salt as possible from the
urine. They also have special mechanisms in their gills and their gut
to actively transport salts from the very dilute water they live in to
the more concentrated body fluids. These pumps use a substantial
fraction of their metabolic energy, a severe evolutionary load.
However they have no choice and, besides, all their competitors in
fresh water have exactly same problem. Fresh water fish and
amphibians live this way, as do fresh water worms, annelids,
crustacea, and insects. Note in particular two things. First, these
vertebrates have kidneys specialized to produce large volumes of very
dilute urine and INwardly directly active transport systems (towards
the body fluids) in kidney and other organs. (Invertebrates are
similar, but their excretory organs are not kidneys and work a bit
differently). Second, these vertebrates have body fluids significantly
less concentrated than sea water, in fact roughly 1/3 the
concentration of sea water. That fact means the problem is not as
severe as it might be if their body fluids were, indeed, as
concentrated as sea water.
The third way to live is to have body fluids significantly more dilute
than the environment. This is the situation for virtually all
salt-water fish, as well as reptiles, birds, and mammals that live
oceanic lives and never encounter fresh-water. Because of this
imbalance, they constantly lose water to the environment by osmosis
and take on salts by diffusion. To compensate, they must constantly
drink (only salt water fish actually "drink like a fish", fresh-water
fish never drink!) and must excrete a very tiny volume of extremely
concentrated urine. Also they must have OUTward directed active
transport systems to eliminate the salt. Not only is it a surprise to
find out that these animals do exist -- their lives would be much
simpler if they just had body fluids the same as sea water. But it
turns out that their kidneys are totally unable to produce
concentrated urine or to transport salts in the OUTward direction at
all! They have extremely reduced kidneys that produce tiny volumes of
urine, but that urine is the same concentration as their body fluids.
They do have specialized outwardly directly salt transport systems in
their gills and gut, So the existence of these animals seems to be a
problem.
Then there is the problem of terrestrial animals. For simplicity, I
will only consider the terrestrial vertebrates -- amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals (OK, I know there is no such thing as
"reptile", but no matter, the argument still holds). All these animals
have body fluids roughly the same osmotic concentration as fresh-water
fish, roughly 1/3 the concentration of sea water. In other words,
this completely explains the original question -- why humans have body
fluids significantly less salty than sea water even though life first
evolved in sea water. The answer is most definitely NOT that oceans
were 1/3 as salty back then. It most definitely IS that the earliest
vertebrates did evolve in salt water and then moved into fresh water.
As an adaptation to avoid the osmotic effect of living the "type-two"
way described above, they dropped the salinity of their body fluids
about as low as they could consistent with keeping their cells happy.
From then on, all vertebrate evolution (including the lungfish and
lobe-fin fish, the amphibians, the reptiles, the birds, and the
mammals) all retained the ancestral body fluid concentration roughly
1/3 sea water. (Again, a technical detail. I am grossly
oversimplifying vertebrate and tetrapod evolution and using incorrect
terms for modern animals to describe the ancient and extinct
transition forms. But that is simply the gross oversimplification
ordinarily used in introductory expositions. If you wish, replace
"lungfish, lobe-fin fish, amphibian, reptile" with the proper
cladistic term, throw in the dinosaurs (although we don't know what
their body fluids were like) and do it up right. You still get the
same result.)
Okay, the original question is now answered. However, the full story
is so beautiful and illustrates so well just how evolution is totally
married to physiology, that I must continue.
Terrestrial vertebrates, the tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds,
and mammals) with good access to fresh water don't have the same
problems as fish because (except for larval amphibians) these animals
don't breath with gills. If you make the skin impermeable, which all
except the amphibians have done, you really don't have the water and
salt exchange problem. However, all these animals still retain the
same physiological pattern as fresh-water fish: a tendency to seek
sources of salt in our food and kidneys specialized to produce large
volumes of very dilute urine using salt transport mechanisms to
reabsorb salt INTO the body from the urine. Since we don't constantly
take in water osmotically through our gills, we do have a change in
that we constantly seek to drink water. Except for drinking water, we
have kidneys and physiology "designed" for living in fresh water.
Now what about tetrapods that live either in deserts or in sea water
and do not have access to fresh water? They constantly lose water by
evaporation and take in salt with their food. As a result, they share
the same problem with salt-water fish: how to obtain enough water and
how to get rid of excess salt. Unfortunately, these animals are stuck
with fresh-water kidneys -- kidneys that produce dilute urine and
salt transport systems that are INward directed. This is a REALLY BIG
example of INCREDIBLY STUPID design in animals. Amphibians can't cope
-- they don't live in marine environments. (Yes, Rana cancrivora
lives in salty mangrove swamps. It is a special case, see below.
There are always special cases!) Reptiles and almost all birds, but
especially including the truly marine birds like penguins,
albatrosses, gulls, auks and puffins, ducks, etc cannot produce
concentrated urine at all. They have evolved specialized glands in
the eyes, nose, and mouth that excrete salt. (Of course these are not
totally new inventions, they are derived from other glands like
lachrymal and salivary glands). Songbirds (Passeriformes) and mammals
have taken a different tack. They have devised an extremely clever
trick in kidney structure to allow salt transport pumps which really
take salt back INTO the body from the urine but still manage to use
them to produce urine much more concentrated that their body fluids
and so excrete salt FROM the body. I can't go into that at all here --
it is a counter-current concentrating mechanism which, for mammals,
involves the Loops of Henle in the kidney. Birds and mammals use a
similar type of trick but in very different ways, indicating separate
evolution in these two groups.
The story is made even more tantalizing by some other special
exceptions in the vertebrates. The hagfish has body fluids the same
as sea water, just like invertebrates. The lamprey has body fluids
more like fresh-water fish. The explanation is that the earliest
craniates evolved in sea water but virtually all the rest of
vertebrate evolution past the hagfish stage occurred in fresh. This
was proposed very early in the 20th century from the physiological
data. I believe this was even before other paleontological evidence
demonstrated that it was correct. (Although I am sure the vertebrate
paleontologists in this group -- if they got to read this far -- will
promptly correct me). And, more interesting, it demonstrated that
hagfish and lampreys were not all that closely related even though
they were lumped together as "cyclostomes" until relatively recently.
In other words, the body fluids of hagfish and lampreys very
beautifully illustrate vertebrate evolution. Then most of the rest of
the vertebrates, having evolved in fresh water, developed body fluids
much more dilute than sea water. That is, human blood plasma salinity
is another beautiful illustration of evolution, exactly contrary to
Uncle Davey's claim that it cannot be explained! But wait, it gets
even better! The sharks are virtually all salt-water fish, but they
have body fluids whose concentration is even slightly MORE
concentrated than sea water! How could that be if vertebrates after
lampreys evolved in fresh water? It turns out that the SALT
concentration of their body fluids is quite consistent with that of
fresh water fish, much more DILUTE than salt water. But they make up
the difference by all lowing urea to accumulate in their body fluids
to make up the osmotic difference. As a result they have the same
WATER problem as fresh-water animals (body fluids more concentrated
than their environment) so their kidneys work OK. However they do
have a SALT problem just the opposite. Their kidneys can't do the job
-- remember, they inherited a fresh-water kidney. So they evolved
special rectal glands to excrete salt. Even more interesting, the
Coelecanth, that "fossil relic" of a lobe-fin fish discovered in deep
oceanic water, does the same trick with urea. So does that weird
frog, Rana cancrivora, the only amphibian that can tolerate
concentrated salt. These illustrate convergent evolution -- a similar
mechanism evolving quite independently in different groups to solve
the same problem. Of course, there is no "irreducible complexity"
involved -- vertebrate kidneys are very good at producing urea and
vertebrate kidneys are ordinarily very good at excreting it. It
doesn't take that much change to retain the urea and urea is not all
that toxic or dangerous so having the cells develop a tolerance to it
is not all that difficult. The salt-water fish have a better solution
(see below) but they evolved separately from these others. Evolution
doesn't always pick the best solution, just one that works well enough
to keep you in the game. Another nice illustration of evolutionary
principles.
So what about salt-water fish? Since they derived from fresh-water
fish that then migrated back out to the ocean, they inherited kidneys
and body fluids totally unsuited for the job. So many of them simply
let their kidneys shrink into insignificance -- they are not that
useful. They drink to take in water and have gill and gut OUTward
transport systems to eliminate the salt. This seems much more
effective than the urea trick. The only way you can easily understand
this situation is to realize that they did in fact originate in
fresh-water. Again, the evolutionary pattern exactly matches the
physiology. Even more -- there are fresh water fish that have
extremely reduced kidneys and have even weirder mechanisms to regulate
body fluids. It turns out that these guys evolved from sea water fish
that migrated back to fresh water! In other words, the pattern of
evolution went from seawater (earliest craniates) to fresh (later
craniates and teleosts) to seawater (saltwater teleosts) to fresh
(this weirdos).
I have already covered the extremely strange situation of desert and
salt water mammals. Even humans live in rather arid climates and often
have little fresh water available. We can produce concentrated urine
(though not nearly as concentrated as desert and marine mammals) but,
remember, we too inherited kidneys totally unsuited for the task.
Remember, the basic freshwater pattern is to produce lots of dilute
urine but desert dwellers must produce a small amount of concentrated
urine. So evolution to the rescue once again: build a Loop of Henle
and use the INward directed salt pumps to simulate an OUTward directed
transport system, hence get concentrated urine. Evolution wins,
again!
Yes, I am getting just a little punchy, but this is a subject I truly
love. Everything about biology, including human physiology, is a
beautiful product of the evolutionary process. Read Homer Smith to
get a more temperate and literate discussion of all this.
So, Uncle Davey, your claim that "the sea must have been a lot less
salty than it is now" is completely wrong. You point that "in
saltwater cells need additional resources to those needed in
freshwater in order to osmoregulate" is entirely wrong for salt water
invertebrates, for hagfish, and for any other animal that evolved in
saltwater and remained their. It is true for salt water fish because
they evolved from fresh water varieties. The pattern of blood plasma
salinity in humans and in all vertebrate animals and, indeed, in all
animals is a beautiful exposition of evolutionary principles, not a
contradiction of evolutionary predictions.
Incidentally, if you ever do get stranded in the middle of the ocean
on a life raft with no water, I suggest that you do NOT drink the sea
water. Not only is it very salty, the high Mg concentration tends to
produce diarrhea which makes your situation even worse. Instead,
catch fish and drink their body fluid! It is significantly less salty
than seawater. Do NOT catch marine invertebrates and drink their body
fluids -- they are just as salty as the ocean.
r norman
wrote:
<snip a very long but, I believe, necessary post to correct an error>
It is, of course, the liver that synthesizes urea, not the kidney.
It is late and somehow my spell check failed to catch that egregious
error.
Dave
A spell-checker's not gonna catch something like *that* :-P [ nudge,
nudge, wink, wink ]. Anyway, I thought it was a great article. I
appreciate that you took the time to write it. It's a keeper. Thanks.
Bruce
news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
Thanks for that. I'm not ready to answer it now, but I thought I'd better
acknowledge such a fascinating and lengthy reply.
I need to read it a couple of times and think it over.
I'll give it the attention it deserves in due course.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Bruce" <bec...@alumni.caltech.edu> napisał w wiadomości
news:7Kfme.1174$4p.468@fed1read03...
I'd like to nominate it for POTM if nobody already has.
It was comprehensive and understandably written, even if I don't agree with
it.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Użytkownik "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
> news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
> Thanks for that. I'm not ready to answer it now, but I
> thought I'd better acknowledge such a fascinating and
> lengthy reply.
>
> I need to read it a couple of times and think it over.
James has already told us that he disagrees with the contents of the
article. He hasn't said why he disagrees--he hasn't even dropped
hints. But he has already said that he disagrees.
> I'll give it the attention it deserves in due course.
If James runs true to form, he won't be addressing it again, just as so
many other creationists in the past have posted questions they never
expected to see answered, and when the question is answered, they say
the same things. "Let me get back to you," or some variation, is
usually the last we see on the matter. They never get back to us.
Dave
> Użytkownik "Bruce" <bec...@alumni.caltech.edu> napisał w wiadomości
> news:7Kfme.1174$4p.468@fed1read03...
> > "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 28 May 2005 16:52:15 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >R Norman wrote:
An excellent post in response to James's comments about salinity and
blood plasma.
> > Really great post. Thanks for the education.
>
> I'd like to nominate it for POTM if nobody already has.
Seconded.
> It was comprehensive and understandably written, even if I
> don't agree with it.
I don't think James has impressed anyone with his knowledge or biology,
chemistry, or physiology, so far, so his disagreement strikes me, at
least, as moot. Perhaps he'll be good enough to write a rebuttal and
disabuse us of the notion that he disagrees with Professor Norman's
article on scientific grounds; and not because he must ignore the
evidence and the article in order to maintain his silly omphalism and
protect his silly religious beliefs.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1117374654....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David James wrote:
> > Użytkownik "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
> > news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
>
> > Thanks for that. I'm not ready to answer it now, but I
> > thought I'd better acknowledge such a fascinating and
> > lengthy reply.
> >
> > I need to read it a couple of times and think it over.
>
> James has already told us that he disagrees with the contents of the
> article. He hasn't said why he disagrees--he hasn't even dropped
> hints. But he has already said that he disagrees.
I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said "even if I don't agree with it".
Horn appears to be comprehensively challenged.
>
> > I'll give it the attention it deserves in due course.
>
> If James runs true to form, he won't be addressing it again, just as so
> many other creationists in the past have posted questions they never
> expected to see answered, and when the question is answered, they say
> the same things. "Let me get back to you," or some variation, is
> usually the last we see on the matter. They never get back to us.
>
If Horn runs true to form, he won't notice when I do get back to it, and
will make out that I have run away, when all the time I am still here.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
James hereby informs Horn that he has no rebuttal to make on the facts and
objective contemporary observations made in the Professor's worthy article.
His response will be on the application of these objective contemporary
observations onto the debate on origins.
James would also like to take this opportunity of expressing his
recognisance to Horn for the seconding of his nomination of the learned
article in question as "post of the month".
Sincerely,
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:1117374654....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > David James wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
> > > news:dibh91tg1eieeuobl...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Thanks for that. I'm not ready to answer it now, but I
> > > thought I'd better acknowledge such a fascinating and
> > > lengthy reply.
> > >
> > > I need to read it a couple of times and think it over.
> >
> > James has already told us that he disagrees with the
> > contents of the article. He hasn't said why he disagrees--he
> > hasn't even dropped hints. But he has already said that
> > he disagrees.
>
> I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said "even if I don't
> agree with it". Horn appears to be comprehensively challenged.
As usual for creationists like James, he makes a comment, gets called
on it, and then wants to dance around it. That's fine. James should
feel free to explain the difference between his not agreeing with it
and "even if I don't agree with it."
> > > I'll give it the attention it deserves in due course.
> >
> > If James runs true to form, he won't be addressing it again,
> > just as so many other creationists in the past have posted
> > questions they never expected to see answered, and when the
> > question is answered, they say the same things. "Let me get
> > back to you," or some variation, is usually the last we see
> > on the matter. They never get back to us.
>
> If Horn runs true to form, he won't notice when I do get back
> to it...
James presumes to make a prediction, but on what is it based? My
prediction is based on the standard behavior of creationists as I have
observed over many years. It would seem that both of our predictions
with respect to this particular case must wait until one thing happens
or another. If James *does* get back to it, which I doubt, I'll notice
(if I happen to be reading at the time). If he doesn't, I'll notice
that, too.
> ...and will make out that I have run away, when all the time
> I am still here.
James speaks in the present tense--"I am still here," he tells us. But
that skirts the point. What happens within the few hours or even the
few days of the posting of the article is not what will tell the tale.
If James makes noises about failing to agree with the contents of the
article, and tells us to give him time to digest it and, as implied,
perhaps compose a response or rebuttal, that's one thing. If he runs
true to form, he won't address it again, but still being "here" doesn't
mean that he didn't run from that particular issue. Creationists
practice varying levels of "running away," after all. James has his
hero, Gastrich, as his shining beacon, to show him the many ways that
one may "run away."
Harlequin
that Dr. Norman had a correction in case Norman wins.)
"Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in news:d7cf9f$l2p$0...@pita.alt.net:
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"Scam artists all use the 'debate ploy': perpetual-motion-machine
inventors, magnet therapists, UFO conspiracy theorists, all of them.
They win just by being on the same platform."
- Bob Park
Dave
Horn already knew that
> His response will be on the application of these objective
> contemporary observations onto the debate on origins.
That doesn't really answer my point, then. Will this "response,"
presumed to address the application onto the debate on origins be based
on objective, empirical, scientific evidences or on some pathetic need
to salvage a false and dying religious idea made more ridiculous by the
application of "omphalism lite?"
Uncle Davey
Horn will certainly infer the latter, regardless of what James eventually
writes.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
There must be fifty ways to leave your Bruvver.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:1117376484.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Snip
> > James speaks in the present tense--"I am still here," he
> > tells us. But that skirts the point. What happens within
> > the few hours or even the few days of the posting of the
> > article is not what will tell the tale. If James makes
> > noises about failing to agree with the contents of the article,
> > and tells us to give him time to digest it and, as implied,
> > perhaps compose a response or rebuttal, that's one thing.
> > If he runs true to form, he won't address it again, but
> > still being "here" doesn't mean that he didn't run from that
> > particular issue. Creationists practice varying levels of
> > "running away," after all. James has his hero, Gastrich,
> > as his shining beacon, to show him the many ways that one
> > may "run away."
>
> There must be fifty ways to leave your Bruvver.
Lack of an intelligent response noted.
Dave
> Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:1117376882....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Snip
> > > His response will be on the application of these
> > > objective contemporary observations onto the
> > > debate on origins.
> >
> > That doesn't really answer my point, then. Will this
> > "response," presumed to address the application onto
> > the debate on origins be based on objective, empirical,
> > scientific evidences or on some pathetic need to salvage
> > a false and dying religious idea made more ridiculous
> > by the application of "omphalism lite?"
>
> Horn will certainly infer the latter, regardless of what
> James eventually writes.
The lack of a direct answer is noted, and Horn will decide what he will
infer whenever, and *if* ever, James writes his response. Since James
can't seem to keep track of his own writings and activities in these
discussions and groups, it probably shouldn't fall to him to decide for
others what they might infer or write.
TomS
Uncle Davey stated..."
[...snip...]
>I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said "even if I don't agree with it".
(I haven't been following this discussion, and this comment is
only on a matter of English usage.)
"... _even if P_ may be used in a context where the truth of _P_ is
not in question: _Even if you are my elder brother, you haven't the
right to tell me what to do_. In such cases the conditional implies
a concessive: _Although you are my elder brother you haven't the
right to tell me what to do_."
page 748
Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
Cambridge U. Press, 2002
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
Uncle Davey
It didn't warrant one.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:d7cmi...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On Sun, 29 May 2005 16:07:16 +0200, in article
<d7ciem$sn2$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> Uncle Davey stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said "even if I don't agree with it".
> [...snip...]
>
> (I haven't been following this discussion, and this comment is
> only on a matter of English usage.)
>
> "... _even if P_ may be used in a context where the truth of _P_ is
> not in question: _Even if you are my elder brother, you haven't the
> right to tell me what to do_. In such cases the conditional implies
> a concessive: _Although you are my elder brother you haven't the
> right to tell me what to do_."
>
> page 748
> Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
> Cambridge U. Press, 2002
>
>
Alright, it may.
That means it may not, also.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:1117378873.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > David James wrote:
> >
> > > Użytkownik "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> > > news:1117376484.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > > James speaks in the present tense--"I am still here," he
> > > > tells us. But that skirts the point. What happens within
> > > > the few hours or even the few days of the posting of the
> > > > article is not what will tell the tale. If James makes
> > > > noises about failing to agree with the contents of the article,
> > > > and tells us to give him time to digest it and, as implied,
> > > > perhaps compose a response or rebuttal, that's one thing.
> > > > If he runs true to form, he won't address it again, but
> > > > still being "here" doesn't mean that he didn't run from that
> > > > particular issue. Creationists practice varying levels of
> > > > "running away," after all. James has his hero, Gastrich,
> > > > as his shining beacon, to show him the many ways that one
> > > > may "run away."
> > >
> > > There must be fifty ways to leave your Bruvver.
> >
> > Lack of an intelligent response noted.
>
> It didn't warrant one.
And here, James uses another dishonest creationist tactic, that is, to
avoid a question or a point by claiming that the question or the point
did not warrant a response. In this way, creationists like James can
try to cover their slime trail by presuming to take a high road, so
that, hopefully, no one notices the slime trail he leaves behind.
Dave
All the obfuscation in the world will not cloud the point. The
statement that James made was clear enough, and in order to get away
with refusing to provide reasons for "even if I don't agree with it,"
he squirms around the issue. Lacking any scientific or empirical
validity to his presumptuous "challenge" to evolution, and finding
himself wanting, James simply squirms over semantics. It is clear that
he wants to leave himself an "out" so that he can hang on to his sad,
little religious omphalism and his own form of Biblical fundamentalism;
but I suspect that he knows, deep down, that he lacks the intellectual
capacity to rebut or even effectively respond. So we get squirming,
instead. "I didn't say I didn't agree, I said 'even if I don't
agree.'" It's an exercise in futility. James is one of those
creationists who seem to think he's smarter and better informed than
those who accept evolution, but his smug haste has exposed him more as
little more than a self-absorbed religionist than once. It does so
again, here.
Uncle Davey
That didn't warrant one either.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
That didn't either.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> <x-posting to soc.singles removed>
> it?
>
> And why do you keep popping soc.singles in, Davey?
>
> --
> mightym...@hotmail.com
Because I can.
Uncle Davey
Dave
> Użytkownik "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:slrnd9jpct.sdu....@strawberry.fields.forever...
> > <x-posting to soc.singles removed>
Snip
> > What don't you agree with? And more importantly why don't
> > you agree with it?
Note: No response.
> > And why do you keep popping soc.singles in, Davey?
> >
> > --
> > mightym...@hotmail.com
>
> Because I can.
If James wants to be exposed as smug, ignorant, and stupid in groups of
his own choosing, perhaps we should oblige him.
Dave
"That didn't either" is just a form of "I can't hear you, I can't hear
you," and James becomes a cartoonish Usenet ostrich, sticking his head
in the sand, but leaving his rather ample backside exposed. That's
appropriate, I guess, since that's the part he "talks out of" most of
the time, anyway.
Dave
James continues to play the Usenet cartoon ostrich, and bleat out his
backside, which is, as I said, where most of what he has to say "comes
from." Fortunately, my efforts to dismantle this Usenet putz are not
dependent on his view of what is warranted and what is not. Let James
play his juvenile games, and repeat himself over and over again while,
in another message, refer to another as "boring" and "repetitive."
There's nothing quite like hypocrisy to sweeten the pot.
Uncle Davey
Still didn't.
Don't give up though. You never know you might hit lucky.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Is this the royal we?
I'm sure Aaron Clausen knows how and where to post without your patronising
guidance.
Uncle Davey
Dave
And I am sure that James can guess, if he thinks about it long enough,
that this was not something that included just one other person. Nor
was it necessarily intended as advice or "guidance."
Uncle Davey
Alright. In the words of your boring mentor "My pizza delivery boy" thinks
that didn't warrant one either.
Hth.
Uncle Davey
Dave
Snip
> > James continues to play the Usenet cartoon ostrich, and
> > bleat out his backside, which is, as I said, where most
> > of what he has to say "comes from." Fortunately, my efforts
> > to dismantle this Usenet putz are not dependent on his view
> > of what is warranted and what is not. Let James play
> > his juvenile games, and repeat himself over and over again
> > while, in another message, refer to another as "boring"
> > and "repetitive." There's nothing quite like hypocrisy
> > to sweeten the pot.
>
> Alright. In the words of your boring mentor...
I'm sure James put this in as an attempt to get me to write "Lenny is
not my mentor," after which, sometime either now or in the future,
James can use it and whine that that's what we say about the
relationship between Gastrich and him, and yet, when it's us skeptical
types, we're "friends" and such. He'll then claim hypocrisy. It's
such a transparent tactic.
> "My pizza delivery boy" thinks that didn't warrant one
> either.
I have already said that my comments are not written with the idea that
James may approve of them on any level, including whether or not they
warrant a reply. Obviously, then, I don't care about his pizza boy,
either; but of this, I have only one suggestion. James should lay off
the pizza, anyway.
Dave
Snip
> > > That didn't either.
> >
> > "That didn't either" is just a form of "I can't hear you,
> > I can't hear you," and James becomes a cartoonish Usenet
> > ostrich, sticking his head in the sand, but leaving his
> > rather ample backside exposed. That's appropriate, I
> > guess, since that's the part he "talks out of" most of
> > the time, anyway.
>
> Still didn't.
>
> Don't give up though. You never know you might hit lucky.
The fact that James has resorted to this sort of thing demonstrates
quite adequately that I don't need luck to deal with the likes of him.
Uncle Davey
Backpedal much?
Uncle Davey
Dave
Snip
> > And I am sure that James can guess, if he thinks about it
> > long enough, that this was not something that included just
> > one other person. Nor was it necessarily intended as advice
> > or "guidance."
>
> Backpedal much?
This is another transparent and common tactic of the creationist. The
explanation in response to his misunderstanding of something is viewed
as a backpedal because it is not exactly how *he* represented it. In
this way, he can cloud the fact that he got it wrong in the first
place. James is a poster boy for creationist rhetoric--the kind used
to bamboozle others into believing that there is anything to it...or
him. What I had to say was exactly what I meant; and there isn't a
thing James can do about that. His response is an act of desperation.
Uncle Davey
No, no. Pure skill all the way. Snork.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Thanks. I gave up pizzas about eight months ago, FYI.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
You wish.
Uncle Davey
Dave
Snip
> > I have already said that my comments are not written with
> > the idea that James may approve of them on any level,
> > including whether or not they warrant a reply. Obviously,
> > then, I don't care about his pizza boy, either; but of this,
> > I have only one suggestion. James should lay off the pizza,
> > anyway.
>
> Thanks. I gave up pizzas about eight months ago, FYI.
Then James really doesn't have a "pizza boy," and he is again exposed
as using only rhetoric. Then again, if he's going to lie about his
"following Gastrich" and prevaricate on the issue of the use of words
in his lack of "agreement" with Professor Norman's article, can we
trust this? The point is not that James eats pizza or doesn't eat
pizza. The point is that there's very little that we can take at face
value. He is not trustworthy.
Uncle Davey
Why, when I said I was impersonating Flankenstein, do I actually need to
have ny own personal pizza delivery boy?
If this is your idea of "untrustworthy", then I feel sorry for you, as you
are very child-like. And not in a good way, either.
That and a borderline Aspergers case, I should think. They take everything
literally as well.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> <soc.singles again removed from x-posting>
>
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:46:11 +0200,
> Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > Użytkownik "AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> > news:slrnd9jpct.sdu....@strawberry.fields.forever...
> >> <x-posting to soc.singles removed>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:13:16 +0200,
> >> Uncle Davey <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It was comprehensive and understandably written, even if I don't
agree
> > with
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> What don't you agree with? And more importantly why don't you agree
with
> >> it?
> >>
> >> And why do you keep popping soc.singles in, Davey?
> >>
> >> --
> >> mightym...@hotmail.com
> >
> > Because I can.
>
> had hopes that you would begin to behave in a reasonable manner, but I can
> see now that you're supposed "reformation" was merely a temporary event.
>
> What else can I say, Davey, but shame on you?
>
> --
> mightym...@hotmail.com
>
You're such a goody two-shoes.
Uncle Davey
cbianco
>> Ah, I see. So you've decided to start trolling again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natch
>That is a pity. I
>> had hopes that you would begin to behave in a reasonable manner, but I can
>> see now that you're supposed "reformation" was merely a temporary event.
>>
>> What else can I say, Davey, but shame on you?
ouch = y / 0
$rhetoricalappeal = learningcurveissues * y
>You're such a goody two-shoes.
"well, that's every pair of shoes in the place."
cbianco
http://www.compleatsteve.com/miscellany/cruelshoes_1.htm
Augray
in news:<d7dc32$t28$0...@pita.alt.net>:
And you're just out for some fun?
> Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "cbianco" <gotosplitb...@yourpleasure.org> napisal w
wiadomosci news:upik91lpmkjftradv...@4ax.com...
> ud vs ud
>
> >> Ah, I see. So you've decided to start trolling again.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natch
>
>
> >That is a pity. I
> >> had hopes that you would begin to behave in a reasonable manner, but I
can
> >> see now that you're supposed "reformation" was merely a temporary
event.
> >>
> >> What else can I say, Davey, but shame on you?
>
> ouch = y / 0
>
> $rhetoricalappeal = learningcurveissues * y
>
>
> >You're such a goody two-shoes.
>
> "well, that's every pair of shoes in the place."
>
They're not fit for humans.
Uncle Davey
cbianco
>> >You're such a goody two-shoes.
>> "well, that's every pair of shoes in the place."
>They're not fit for humans.
i like them.
cbianco
she said