More Evidence for Evolution - In Sea Snakes
Budikka666
http://tinyurl.com/y8v5sbu
has a blog about pseudogenes in sea snakes. The *only* explanation
for these genes which has both scientific support and which makes
sense is the Theory of Evolution. Direct special creation by a
divinity makes no sense at all unless you;re simultaneously claiming
that this creator god is a laughable moron.
Which is it, Creationist SCUM?
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
I heard on NPR in the car today that a dinosaur fossil with poison
fangs had been found in China. They were rear fangs (seen in some
snakes today)with grooves and channels that led to a void in the
skull.
They're finding more and more predicted transitionals.
>Budikka
J.W. Wolfe
>
> Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > Jerry Coyne atwww.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com:
> >http://tinyurl.com/y8v5sbu
> > has a blog about pseudogenes in sea snakes. The *only* explanation
> > for these genes which has both scientific support and which makes
> > sense is the Theory of Evolution. Direct special creation by a
> > divinity makes no sense at all unless you;re simultaneously claiming
> > that this creator god is a laughable moron.
>
> > Which is it, Creationist SCUM?
>
> >
> Why are you being so nasty?
When I treat creationists like they treat scientists, this is being
nasty?
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:01:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>
> >Jerry Coyne atwww.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com:
> >http://tinyurl.com/y8v5sbu
> >has a blog about pseudogenes in sea snakes. The *only* explanation
> >for these genes which has both scientific support and which makes
> >sense is the Theory of Evolution. Direct special creation by a
> >divinity makes no sense at all unless you;re simultaneously claiming
> >that this creator god is a laughable moron.
>
> >Which is it, Creationist SCUM?
>
> I heard on NPR in the car today that a dinosaur fossil with poison
> fangs had been found in China. They were rear fangs (seen in some
> snakes today)with grooves and channels that led to a void in the
> skull.
>
> They're finding more and more predicted transitionals.
>
> >Budikka
The jury is apparently still out on the venom according to Ed Yong's
blog:
http://tinyurl.com/y8lplm8
(www.scienceblogs.com)
We'll have to wait on more data. Being a scientist - oddly enough -
requires the patience of a saint! LoL!
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
In their eyes.
>Budikka
Free Lunch
Creationists claim to be doing the work of some god or other and
therefore are under the impression that they get a pass when they lie,
are rude, refuse to learn, and otherwise act like jerks.
Budikka666
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:56:15 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
Amen to that!
Budikka
Puck Greenman.
wrote:
I don't think it is an act.
Jimbo
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > Jerry Coyne atwww.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com:
> > has a blog about pseudogenes in sea snakes. The *only* explanation
> > for these genes which has both scientific support and which makes
> > sense is the Theory of Evolution. Direct special creation by a
> > divinity makes no sense at all unless you;re simultaneously claiming
> > that this creator god is a laughable moron.
>
> > Which is it, Creationist SCUM?
>
> >
> Why are you being so nasty?
>
>
He's probably responding to the usual treatment expected from the
creationists.
Christopher A. Lee
It's a mental disorder.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
The first time I came across this kind of personality, it was a
manager I had to work for who had bullshat his way into the job and
would say anything to cover up for his ignorance. He'd also try to
impress with obvious bullshit that only demonstrated his ignorance.
This wasn't a religion problem but an asshole one. He didn't just live
in a world of his own that centred on him but invented all sorts of
things to fit - including why the team members disagreed with him
about the very work they did and also the ad hoc lie when he felt he
needed to say something.
But most of the religious loonies here also have exactly the same
narcissistic personality disorder.
Puck Greenman.
Yep. and the saddest part, is that they are NOT a dying breed.
>
>But most of the religious loonies here also have exactly the same
>narcissistic personality disorder.
Aint that the truth.
Christopher A. Lee
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The only good thing to come out of this is that it made me understand
the loonies,
>Yep. and the saddest part, is that they are NOT a dying breed.
They're impossible to get through to. But at least in a highly
technical environment where most of the managenent are also technical
everbody saw through him. It didn't help his team though because we
were supposed to teach new members (including managers) what they
needed to know.
>>But most of the religious loonies here also have exactly the same
>>narcissistic personality disorder.
>
>Aint that the truth.
The sad thing is that you _have_ to respond to them (the religious
loonies) because too many people trust what they say. When you do that
you get all the crap that link describes.
samvaknin
Lorentz
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:01:02 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>
> >Jerry Coyne atwww.whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com:
> >http://tinyurl.com/y8v5sbu
> I heard on NPR in the car today that a dinosaur fossil with poison
> fangs had been found in China. They were rear fangs (seen in some
> snakes today)with grooves and channels that led to a void in the
> skull.
>
> They're finding more and more predicted transitionals.
>
> >Budikka
This would not be a transitional to poison snakes. Snakes and
arcosaurs split a long time before the dinosaurs evolved.
Maybe you made a little mistake. I suspect that you don't mean a
dinosaur fossil. You may mean a lizard fossil, or a legged snake
fossil.
It is possible that poison fangs in dinosaurs and snakes are
homologous. However, I don't know of any birds or crocodilians with
venomous glands. Therefore, poison glands in a dinosaur could be a
case of parallel evolution.
Someone could argue that the dinosaur was specially created to
have glands. Therefore, you should include some more details that tell
us the glands in snakes and dinosaurs are homologous.
I know Creationists play games with the word "transitional."
However, I think it would be fair to restrict the use of the word
transitional to animals that have features homologous to those
features in different types of animals. Mere analogy won't do.
Lorentz
Point being that we don't have a free pass to act like that.
Therefore, we should act like we don't.
We have all evolved from scum. Creationists deny evolving from
scum. They chose to be lie, be rude, not learn, and act like jerks.
When you get really angry, call them lying, rude, close minded jerks.
Doesn't that sound so much worse than merely "scum?"