Bacteria can learn and plan ahead ...

[wattsr1]

But it's all in the genes, so it would appear.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090617131400.htm


From the authors of the research:-


Mitchell, A. et al. (2009) Adaptive prediction of environmental changes by microorganisms. Nature, advance online.

Natural habitats of some microorganisms may fluctuate erratically, whereas others, which are more predictable, offer the opportunity to prepare in advance for the next environmental change. In analogy to classical Pavlovian conditioning, microorganisms may have evolved to anticipate environmental stimuli by adapting to their temporal order of appearance. Here we present evidence for environmental change anticipation in two model microorganisms, Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that anticipation is an adaptive trait, because pre-exposure to the stimulus that typically appears early in the ecology improves the organism's fitness when encountered with a second stimulus. Additionally, we observe loss of the conditioned response in E. coli strains that were repeatedly exposed in a laboratory evolution experiment only to the first stimulus. Focusing on the molecular level reveals that the natural temporal order of stimuli is embedded in the wiring of the regulatory network—early stimuli pre-induce genes that would be needed for later ones, yet later stimuli only induce genes needed to cope with them. Our work indicates that environmental anticipation is an adaptive trait that was repeatedly selected for during evolution and thus may be ubiquitous in biology.”


My thanks to SteveF at TalkRational for bringing this to our attention.



Regards, Roland

[gharfish]

He knows too much 'bout the plan, boss. We should whack 'im ? :tongue:


>

[MooseOnTheLoose]

For God's sake, Roland, when are you going to give up on the idea that evolution has any kind of intelligence behind it? You can only stretch even the most flexible of rubber bands so far before it goes snap.

Nevertheless, I'm sure these windbags really do believe the nonsense they're making up as they go along.

Sheesh....

[wattsr1]

He knows too much 'bout the plan, boss. We should whack 'im ? :tongue:


> :lol:


But who told you that you could publish my family shots?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Doesn't that germ in the middle know that smoking is bad for his health?

[supersport]

Roland......please explain how matter (otherwise known as atoms, which you say are not intelligent) can plan ahead.

[wattsr1]

Roland......please explain how matter (otherwise known as atoms, which you say are not intelligent) can plan ahead.?!?

You go first Sporty. Explain how come, if atoms are intelligent, that iron bars are dumb.

I shall be over at CARM shortly to see if there is any more progress from other YECs on:-

1) All fish that leave the water must die, even though it is observed that some fish can leave the water and not die, and

2) "God did it" is a very good explanation for anything because it is a) rational, b) clear, and c) parsimonious.

I just need a few bottles of whisky before hand, just to get my mind in order to think creation science through.



Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

?!?

You go first Sporty. Explain how come, if atoms are intelligent, that iron bars are dumb.

I shall be over at CARM shortly to see if there is any more progress from other YECs on:-

1) All fish that leave the water must die, even though it is observed that some fish can leave the water and not die, and

2) "God did it" is a very good explanation for anything because it is a) rational, b) clear, and c) parsimonious.

I just need a few bottles of whisky before hand, just to get my mind in order to think creation science through.

Regards, Roland

*******************************************************************************************

Roland,

After reading the above post, there is only one possible conclusion : you are de - evolving.
As you know, I do not believe that man evolved from some ape. However, many years of
experience dealing with people like you has convinced me that, given enough time, humans
will become ape-like in thoughts and deeds.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*******************************************************************************************

Roland,

After reading the above post, there is only one possible conclusion : you are de - evolving.
As you know, I do not believe that man evolved from some ape. However, many years of
experience dealing with people like you has convinced me that, given enough time, humans
will become ape-like in thoughts and deeds.

Jorge

Problem is Jorge, they are, in essence, YEC arguments over at CARM.

The intelligent atoms one belongs to Sporty.

The fish one belongs to another bloke who claims that tetrapods cannot have evolved from fish because as soon as any fish leaves water, it begins to die. You will understand what happened next. After several exchanges with me pointing out that many fish leave the water for periods of time and then return to it, he simply stood on his dig, told me that I was trying to trap him, and that I was simply wrong, so there. A post or two later he put me on ignore. (Ring a bell Jorge?)

The "God did" it is the essence of an exchange I am having with another poster who claimed that the Biblical account of creation is much better than any Aztec one for essentially the reasons I gave. Problem is, he forgot to tell me how he managed to reach these conclusions. He still hasn't told me. But what time he does give me is spent avoiding this kind of issue. (Is that another bell I hear going "ding", "ding"?)


Jorge, I cannot help it if the above examples are what creation science leads you guys to accept. And surely you would understand why several bottles of whisky are needed in order for one to think like so many of you do.

And what am I supposed to do? Try and converse at the above level of reasoning, sober? How can that possibly work?



Regards, Roland

[Dee Dee Warren]

Do you know what we do with forum tarts around here?

[wattsr1]

Do you know what we do with forum tarts around here?Heck if you do that to the sheilas (birds, wimmin), then wot do you do to the blokes?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

then wot do you do to the blokes?

Did you have to ask?

[Jorge]

Problem is Jorge, they are, in essence, YEC arguments over at CARM.

The intelligent atoms one belongs to Sporty.

Without even looking I am willing to bet good money that you are
misunderstanding the argument.

Ding ... there goes the bell !




The fish one belongs to another bloke who claims that tetrapods cannot have evolved from fish because as soon as any fish leaves water, it begins to die. You will understand what happened next. After several exchanges with me pointing out that many fish leave the water for periods of time and then return to it, he simply stood on his dig, told me that I was trying to trap him, and that I was simply wrong, so there. A post or two later he put me on ignore. (Ring a bell Jorge?)Ding ding ... there goes the bell again.

I challenge you to prove otherwise; i.e., that as soon as a fish leaves the
water it does not begin to die. I know about lungfish, etc. While these
may survive outside of water, it's just survival - they neither feed nor
reproduce. Besides, it's only for a limited period of time. You will never
find a lungfish or any other fish born and / or living permanently on dry land.
Thus, this "bloke" is absolutely correct.

It is by FAITH that you believe in a fish-to-tetrapod evolution ... zero evidence.




The "God did" it is the essence of an exchange I am having with another poster who claimed that the Biblical account of creation is much better than any Aztec one for essentially the reasons I gave. Problem is, he forgot to tell me how he managed to reach these conclusions. He still hasn't told me. But what time he does give me is spent avoiding this kind of issue. (Is that another bell I hear going "ding", "ding"?)Ding ding ding ... and again.

People like me aren't avoiding the issue , we are avoiding YOU (invincible ignorance).



Jorge, I cannot help it if the above examples are what creation science leads you guys to accept. And surely you would understand why several bottles of whisky are needed in order for one to think like so many of you do.Ding dong ... yup, again.

People drink whiskey, tequila, vodka, whatever to avoid facing certain truths.
You may put whatever twist you wish on that.



And what am I supposed to do? Try and converse at the above level of reasoning, sober? How can that possibly work?You go on right ahead and continue trying to justify your
beliefs however way you think you can get away with, Roland.

Jorge

[SteveF]

Hello Jorge. You say:


It is by FAITH that you believe in a fish-to-tetrapod evolution ... zero evidence.

That sounds like a pretty definitive statement to me. As you are so confident in your opinion, why don't you pop over here:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

where you will find Per Ahlberg. Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution. Since you seem so certain that his entire career has been a waste of time and there is no basis whatsoever for any of the multitude of papers he has written, it would only seem fair to let him know.

In addition, you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod evolution. So that's an extra incentive for you.

Here are just a few of their most recent papers, to give you a flavour:

Callier, V. et al. (2009) Contrasting Developmental Trajectories in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Forelimbs (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5925/364). Science, 324, 364-367.

Boisvert, C.A. et al. (2008) The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html). Nature, 456, 636-638.

Ahlberg, P.E. et al. (2008) Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature06991.html). Nature, 453, 1199-1204.

Brazeau, M.D. and Ahlberg, P.E. (2006) Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/abs/nature04196.html) Nature, 439, 318-321.

Brazeau, M.D. (2009) The braincase and jaws of a Devonian 'acanthodian' and modern gnathostome origins (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7227/abs/nature07436.html). Nature, 457, 305-308.

I look forward to you putting your money where your mouth is.

[Bill the Cat]

Holy smokes!!! It's SteveF!! I cheat bribe threaten campaign to get you alumnus, and then you go off forum tarting??

:wink: We missed you!

[Jorge]

Hello Jorge. You say:

That sounds like a pretty definitive statement to me. As you are so confident in your opinion, why don't you pop over here:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

where you will find Per Ahlberg. Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution.

So, "Per is a world leading ... in tetrapod evolution".
Are we supposed to worship him?
Does that mean that he cannot be wrong?
Is Per infallible?



Since you seem so certain that his entire career has been a waste of time and there is no basis whatsoever for any of the multitude of papers he has written, it would only seem fair to let him know.Fine, I'm letting him know here and now :
Per, I'm sorry to say that your entire career has been a waste of time.

However, there most definitely IS a basis for the multitude of papers
that he has written. That basis is a BELIEF in evolution coupled with
accepting the results/papers of others that share his BELIEFS.



In addition, you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod evolution. So that's an extra incentive for you.Is Brazeau another one that we are to bow down and worship?
Is Brazeau also infallible?

Boy ... I didn't realize that there were so many 'gods' out there.




Here are just a few of their most recent papers, to give you a flavour:

Callier, V. et al. (2009) Contrasting Developmental Trajectories in the Earliest Known Tetrapod Forelimbs (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5925/364). Science, 324, 364-367.

Boisvert, C.A. et al. (2008) The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html). Nature, 456, 636-638.

Ahlberg, P.E. et al. (2008) Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature06991.html). Nature, 453, 1199-1204.

Brazeau, M.D. and Ahlberg, P.E. (2006) Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7074/abs/nature04196.html) Nature, 439, 318-321.

Brazeau, M.D. (2009) The braincase and jaws of a Devonian 'acanthodian' and modern gnathostome origins (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7227/abs/nature07436.html). Nature, 457, 305-308.

I look forward to you putting your money where your mouth is.

No, let me give you a "flavor".

The total number of links that you provided were 6. So I did my
labeling thing, tossed a die, and the one by Boisvert came out.

Here's the abstract with a few comments inserted (perhaps this will give you a clue) :

One of the identifying characteristics of tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) is the presence of fingers and toes. That's a valid observation. Whereas the proximal part of the tetrapod limb skeleton can easily be homologized with the paired fin skeletons of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish, That's NOT an observation; that's making the data fit the theory. there has been much debate about the origin of digits. Early hypotheses1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B1) interpreted digits as derivatives of fin radials, but during the 1990s the idea gained acceptance that digits are evolutionary novelties without direct equivalents in fish fin skeletons. Again, this is not an observation; this is thinking as per the evolutionary presupposition. This was partly based on developmental genetic data2 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B2), but also substantially on the pectoral fin skeleton of the elpistostegid (transitional fish/tetrapod) Panderichthys, which appeared to lack distal digit-like radials3 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B3). DITTO. Here we present a CT scan study of an undisturbed pectoral fin of Panderichthys demonstrating that the plate-like 'ulnare' of previous reconstructions is an artefact and that distal radials are in fact present. This distal portion is more tetrapod-like than that found in Tiktaalik4 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B4) and, in combination with new data about fin development in basal actinopterygians5 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B5), sharks6 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B6) and lungfish7 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7222/full/nature07339.html#B7), makes a strong case for fingers not being a novelty of tetrapods but derived from pre-existing distal radials present in all sarcopterygian fish. Three words : interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. Here's how it goes : first, evolution is true - period. Then, whatever is observed must be acccording to evolution (since it is a fact, Fact, FACT!). Ergo, the new data is interpreted as suggesting that fingers weren't a novelty of tetrapods but derived from pre-existing distal radials present in sarcopterygian fish. That, then, becomes "science" that is publishable in a leading "scientific" journal, Nature, and is based on hypotheses built upon hypotheses built upon hypotheses.


My "money has been put where my mouth is" (only, I'm
quite sure that you and your demigod pals won't 'get it').

Jorge

[SteveF]

So, "Per is a world leading ... in tetrapod evolution".
Are we supposed to worship him?
Does that mean that he cannot be wrong?
Is Per infallible?

Er, no I didn't say that. In fact you quite literally made that up


Fine, I'm letting him know here and now :
Per, I'm sorry to say that your entire career has been a waste of time.

However, there most definitely IS a basis for the multitude of papers
that he has written. That basis is a BELIEF in evolution coupled with
accepting the results/papers of others that share his BELIEFS.

Very nice. When will you be telling Per this? Again, here's the link:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23


Is Brazeau another one that we are to bow down and worship?
Is Brazeau also infallible?

Boy ... I didn't realize that there were so many 'gods' out there.

More random comments pulled out of thin air. Congratulations.


No, let me give you a "flavor".

The total number of links that you provided were 6.

Hooray, you can count. Except, um, there were 5. So I guess you can't count. Hey ho.


Here's the abstract with a few comments inserted (perhaps this will give you a clue) :

<snip drivel>

My "money has been put where my mouth is" (only, I'm
quite sure that you and your demigod pals won't 'get it').

Um, no. That's not putting your money where you mouth is. Per is not a member here, he is only an active member at this (http://talkrational.org/index.php) messageboard. So you aren't addressing anything to him. Putting your money where you mouth is would be justifying your brazen statement to Per and Martin, two of the best people in the world to discuss this with, here:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Do you dare? I bet you don't.

[oxmixmudd]

I challenge you to prove otherwise; i.e., that as soon as a fish leaves the
water it does not begin to die. I know about lungfish, etc. While these
may survive outside of water, it's just survival - they neither feed nor
reproduce. Besides, it's only for a limited period of time. You will never
find a lungfish or any other fish born and / or living permanently on dry land.
Thus, this "bloke" is absolutely correct.

It is by FAITH that you believe in a fish-to-tetrapod evolution ... zero evidence.





Jorge - you contradict yourself in your second sentence. Your third sentence is a back-peddle and ignores the fact that in a hypothetical transition from fish to land animal, per ToE, at some period in time along the path of evolving from a fish to a tetrapod, a creature capable of doing both would exist ... which is what you just described.

And so it is clear a creature can exist that can do both that is fish-like.

As for the first sentence - any hypothetical path of evolution would propose that some natural environmental element would select for fish that can survive longer outside of water. The initial fish in the transition doesn't have to be able to live on land, there only need be some natural advantage to being able to be out of the water for periods of time to drive, over time, a gradually increasing capability to be out of the water.

As for zero evidence - that is simply false. We have a clear set of fossils consistent with the hypothesis fish evolved into tetrapods. What you really mean is something more along the lines of there is no existing evidence that could convince YOU of fish to tetrapod evolution.


Jim

[rogue06]

Ding ding ... there goes the bell again.

I challenge you to prove otherwise; i.e., that as soon as a fish leaves the
water it does not begin to die. I know about lungfish, etc. While these
may survive outside of water, it's just survival - they neither feed nor
reproduce. Besides, it's only for a limited period of time. You will never
find a lungfish or any other fish born and / or living permanently on dry land.
Thus, this "bloke" is absolutely correct.
Really Jorge? I’ve seen mudskipper’s eating crickets before and the mudskippers had to leave the pond they were in to get them. In fact, this from Wikipedia:


They are completely amphibious fish, fish that can use its pectoral fins to "walk" on land. Being amphibious, they are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats which survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools. Mudskippers are quite active when out of water, feeding and interacting with one another, for example to defend their territories.


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper)

Sounds like they, being “completely amphibious fish,” are able to do quite a bit more than just survive when they’re out of water.

In fact, HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-T_pu-ImVU&feature=related) is a 15 second video of baby mudskippers being hand fed while they’re out of the water (there are numerous videos that show mudskippers hunting prey as well).


It is by FAITH that you believe in a fish-to-tetrapod evolution ... zero evidence.
Those pesky fossils of "fishapods" such as Tiktaalik notwithstanding.

[rogue06]

So, "Per is a world leading ... in tetrapod evolution".
Are we supposed to worship him?
Does that mean that he cannot be wrong?
Is Per infallible?

...

Is Brazeau another one that we are to bow down and worship?
Is Brazeau also infallible?

Boy ... I didn't realize that there were so many 'gods' out there.
Didn't realize being offered a chance to rebut leading authorities on a topic that Jorge asserts is nonsense would unnerve him so :lol: Can you please show where SteveF ever even implied much less said that they were infallible and worthy of worship. This is really pathetic reaction on your part Jorge.

[wattsr1]

… I am willing to bet good money that you are
misunderstanding the argument.
Then tell me about it Jorge. Oh wait …

Without even looking …
… you don’t want to examine it to see.



I challenge you to prove otherwise;
Well I was hoping he would prove his point. But he didn’t. Like I said, he simply did a Jorge, stood on his dig, declared himself to be correct and put me on ignore. The argument got so silly that he wrote:-

“;ergo evolution of the fish to amphibian kind cannot happen because every fish that came out of the water (his natural habitat) starts dying because he cannot breath the way he was created to do.”

And later:-

” Not in the sense of lungs. And not in the sense of living a productive life, gathering/catching food, reproducing. So I restate my observed position:- Fish out of water, Fish Dies – EVERY TIME. “

As one commentator noted:-

”Note well boys and girls, He is now claiming to have observed every fish that ever came out of water for the last many millions of years. This seems a bit of a stretch. Come on buddy, you have to have missed a few of them, and those are the ones that did not die, indeed the ones that gave rise to you and yours eventually!”

As I noted

” So since every fish dies every time, then how come mudskippers and lungfish manage to make it back? I mean, mudskippers do make it back to the water don't they Sheph? Yet you claim they die. How does this all work. A fish crawls out of the water, lives, does it thing, crawls back.”


i.e., that as soon as a fish leaves the water it does not begin to die. I know about lungfish, etc. While these may survive outside of water, it's just survival - they neither feed nor reproduce. Besides, it's only for a limited period of time. You will never find a lungfish or any other fish born and / or living permanently on dry land. Thus, this "bloke" is absolutely correct.
You never did understand the theory you spend so much time criticizing did you Jorge. You really are a case of “choice trumps knowledge”.

Here is something from another poster:-


Nice try sheppie. Read the following about the Mangrove Killfish, which can live indefinitely out of water:

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/living/

It is a fish. And it doesn't die when it leaves the water. For months at a time. Not all, or even most fish are adapted to live out of the water. But some are. It's observable. All it would take is one type of fish (like the above) to survive on land for extended periods and then its descendants gradually adapt to a largely terrestial lifestyle.

Kind of like amphibians, wouldn't you say? Most amphibians need to keep their skin moist, and have to return to the water to reproduce. Not unlike the Mangrove Killfish, which is STILL A FISH. Or would you consider it to be of the amphibifish kind?

So nice try Jorge. Did you note what the article said?????


People like me aren't avoiding the issue , we are avoiding YOU (invincible ignorance).
Is it because of my lack of under-arm deodorant? Because I don’t shower?


People drink whiskey, tequila, vodka, whatever to avoid facing certain truths. You may put whatever twist you wish on that.
But it’s true Jorge. It must be, because I said so.


You go on right ahead and continue trying to justify your beliefs however way you think you can get away with, …
C’mon Jorge, unless I don’t think straight, how on earth can I match the wisdom and breadth of knowledge in your replies?


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

Really Jorge? I’ve seen mudskipper’s eating crickets before and the mudskippers had to leave the pond they were in to get them. In fact, this from Wikipedia:
Take a look at my post to Jorge, the bit a poster called "birdan" put up. The link is there.

But I guess this all comes down to whether Jorge says it's true or not. Jorge says it's not true therefore your link and my link are telling lies.


Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

Here is something from another poster (Birdan):-

So nice try Jorge. Did you note what the article said?????

Yup, I sure did note what it said! Apparently you did not.

In bolded red letters, you / Birdam claim that this fish can live "indefinitely out of the water".

The article says, "After his studies, he found that the fish can actively survive out of water for
66 days! The fish usually lives in water with low oxygen content. Mud-bottomed ditches,
marshes, and even in heavily polluted salt and fresh water. When these areas dry up, they
move into local logs until more water areas become available."

At the school that I went to, 66 days is NOT "indefinitely".
Why don't you try again, Roland, after you sober up?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Didn't realize being offered a chance to rebut leading authorities on a topic that Jorge asserts is nonsense would unnerve him so. Can you please show where SteveF ever even implied much less said that they were infallible and worthy of worship. This is really pathetic reaction on your part Jorge.

****************************************************************

You are a very dishonest debater, rogue06 and (from the other posts) you are not alone.

Clearly, except to the brain-dead or the dishonest, my comment about infallibility / worthy
of worship was sarcasm in response to SteveF's credentialistic tactic. I'm referring to :

"Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution ... In addition,
you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly
prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod
evolution."

I've said this before : everything needs to be spelled out for you people (the whole lot of you).
Either you are mentally deficient or you ignore the obvious so as to justify acts of vilification.

I do not give a rat's tail about Per's or Brazeau's credentials. They have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Yup, I sure did note what it said! Apparently you did not.

In bolded red letters, you / Birdam claim that this fish can live "indefinitely out of the water".

The article says, "After his studies, he found that the fish can actively survive out of water for
66 days! The fish usually lives in water with low oxygen content. Mud-bottomed ditches,
marshes, and even in heavily polluted salt and fresh water. When these areas dry up, they
move into local logs until more water areas become available."

At the school that I went to, 66 days is NOT "indefinitely".
Why don't you try again, Roland, after you sober up?

Jorge
Er Jorge...indefinitely means having no exact limits. The longest sample was 66 days. The point being to counteract the creto claim that the fish would die within hours of leaving the water.

No one makes clueless stupidity into a art form like you Jorge, no one. :lol:

- T

[Tiggy]

****************************************************************

You are a very dishonest debater, rogue06 and (from the other posts) you are not alone.

Clearly, except to the brain-dead or the dishonest, my comment about infallibility / worthy
of worship was sarcasm in response to SteveF's credentialistic tactic. I'm referring to :

"Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution ... In addition,
you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly
prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod
evolution."

I've said this before : everything needs to be spelled out for you people (the whole lot of you).
Either you are mentally deficient or you ignore the obvious so as to justify acts of vilification.

I do not give a rat's tail about Per's or Brazeau's credentials. They have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

Jorge

Ya know Jorge, instead of just running that big mouth you could go to TalkRational (http://www.talkrational.org/) and address Per and Martin directly. They've both been extremely pleasant and more than willing to explain their work.

But you won't, because you're a :chicken: , and everyone knows it.

- T

[SteveF]

blah blah blah

What I think you meant to say was:

"I made a brazen statement and now I'm too chicken to properly back it up".

Again, here's the link:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

So, will you take the opportunity to man up or will you run away from the challenge? I think we've already seen the answer, but stranger things have happened.

[Jorge]

What I think you meant to say was:

"I made a brazen statement and now I'm too chicken to properly back it up".

Again, here's the link:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

So, will you take the opportunity to man up or will you run away from the challenge? I think we've already seen the answer, but stranger things have happened.

********************************************************************************************

I love the way you "blah blah" whatever you do not want to hear.
Like the dumb kid that plugs his ears with his fingers and yells,
"La-la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you!" You are funneeeee, SteveF! :lol:


EVERYTHING that needs to be said is here :

Per's and Brazeau's credentials are mostly irrelevant. As you, they have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.


I cannot help you if you willingly wish to ignore the above truth.

I can help it if you wish to sucker me into your wasteful "challenge".

It is not a "challenge" when people have completely shut off their
minds to anything that threatens their presupposed beliefs.
Yeah ... not a 'challenge', but rather 'wasteful futility'.

Jorge

[SteveF]

So, you're wimping out then. Got it.

[rogue06]

****************************************************************

You are a very dishonest debater, rogue06 and (from the other posts) you are not alone.

Clearly, except to the brain-dead or the dishonest, my comment about infallibility / worthy
of worship was sarcasm in response to SteveF's credentialistic tactic. I'm referring to :

"Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution ... In addition,
you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly
prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod
evolution."

I've said this before : everything needs to be spelled out for you people (the whole lot of you).
Either you are mentally deficient or you ignore the obvious so as to justify acts of vilification.

I do not give a rat's tail about Per's or Brazeau's credentials. They have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

Jorge
Bunk Jorge. If you offered me a chance to directly debate the likes of Ken Ham I wouldn't care if you introduced him as a world's leading authority on young earth creationism I'd be too busy salivating over the prospect of ripping him to shreds rather than making weak excuses for why I can't/won't do it.

[rogue06]

Yup, I sure did note what it said! Apparently you did not.

In bolded red letters, you / Birdam claim that this fish can live "indefinitely out of the water".

The article says, "After his studies, he found that the fish can actively survive out of water for
66 days! The fish usually lives in water with low oxygen content. Mud-bottomed ditches,
marshes, and even in heavily polluted salt and fresh water. When these areas dry up, they
move into local logs until more water areas become available."

At the school that I went to, 66 days is NOT "indefinitely".
Why don't you try again, Roland, after you sober up?

Jorge
How about your claim that "they neither feed nor reproduce" out of water which was terminally rebutted by the fact that mudskippers most certainly do hunt and feed while out of water?

Are you ignoring that part "like the dumb kid that plugs his ears with his fingers and yells,
"La-la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you!"

[Jorge]

So, you're wimping out then. Got it.

*******************************************************************************

"Wimping out" ??? :stunned:

Ah ... I see that you're once again using the New Age Dictionary.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Bunk Jorge. If you offered me a chance to directly debate the likes of Ken Ham I wouldn't care if you introduced him as a world's leading authority on young earth creationism I'd be too busy salivating over the prospect of ripping him to shreds rather than making weak excuses for why I can't/won't do it.

******************************************************************************************

Read the following paragraph 20 50 125 times and perhaps, maybe you'll 'get it'.

Per's and Brazeau's credentials are mostly irrelevant. As you, they have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

That is why I won't do it. You may believe whatever you wish (undoubtedly you will).

As for myself, I will not bet a plugged nickel that you'll 'get it' --- not now and possibly not ever.

Jorge

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Bunk Jorge. If you offered me a chance to directly debate the likes of Ken Ham I wouldn't care if you introduced him as a world's leading authority on young earth creationism I'd be too busy salivating over the prospect of ripping him to shreds rather than making weak excuses for why I can't/won't do it.

Well you always could make that trip to the Creation Museum - and not limit your visit to the Planetarium.

Heck, if I had the money I'd sponsor you to go.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

SteveF, welcome back, I daresay you didn't believe much would've changed.

Just like the good old days in here.

[SteveF]

******************************************************************************************

Read the following paragraph 20 50 125 times and perhaps, maybe you'll 'get it'.

Per's and Brazeau's credentials are mostly irrelevant. As you, they have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

That is why I won't do it. You may believe whatever you wish (undoubtedly you will).

As for myself, I will not bet a plugged nickel that you'll 'get it' --- not now and possibly not ever.

Jorge

I'm caught between two minds here. On the one hand, Jorge seems to be flailing away in a particularly feeble fashion, trying to extracate himself from the hole he's dug. This is very amusing. On the other hand, what if Jorge isn't merely desperately ducking and dodging, what if he actually believes the tripe he writes? This would be very sad indeed and I'd feel terribly guilty for laughing at him.

It's a dilemma that's for sure.

Meanwhile, if you ever grow a pair, you know where to go:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

[SteveF]

SteveF, welcome back, I daresay you didn't believe much would've changed.

Just like the good old days in here.

In these times of great upheaval, it's good to know there are rocks of stability to cling to. Jorge make himself look dumb being one of the most reliable ones.

[oxmixmudd]

****************************************************************

You are a very dishonest debater, rogue06 and (from the other posts) you are not alone.

This is a lie. Rogue06 is not a 'dishonest debator'. He (almost?) never even lowers himself to the kinds of underhanded tactics you yourself use, and he ALWAYS deals with the actual data at hand, something you only occasionally (and rather poorly) attempt to do.



Clearly, except to the brain-dead or the dishonest, my comment about infallibility / worthy
of worship was sarcasm in response to SteveF's credentialistic tactic. I'm referring to :


See - lots of name calling, lots of ad-homenem accusations - but does Jorge ever get to the data on mudskippers in Rogue's post?



"Per is a world leading palaeontologist and a specialist in tetrapod evolution ... In addition,
you could chat to Martin Brazeau, one of Per's former PhD students and an increasingly
prominent palaeontologist in his own right. He has also published evidence for tetrapod
evolution."

I've said this before : everything needs to be spelled out for you people (the whole lot of you).
Either you are mentally deficient or you ignore the obvious so as to justify acts of vilification.

Ah yes, the obligatory whining about vilification, all the while hurling insult after insult, accusation after accusation ...



I do not give a rat's tail about Per's or Brazeau's credentials. They have subscribed to a
BELIEF system and they promote this system at every turn. They base all of their work on
the presupposition that things happened this way and the data are made to fit this system.
If the data deviates in any way then they concoct auxiliary hypotheses that make the data
fit with the evolutionary model. That you cannot / will not comprehend this is your problem.

Jorge

Ah - another set of accusations without substantiation.

So Jorge, do you care to point out where the data leads away from fish -> tetrapod evolution and exactly how that data is being ignored or explained away?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for an answer ... it would most likely be fatal.


Jim

[rogue06]

Bunk Jorge. If you offered me a chance to directly debate the likes of Ken Ham I wouldn't care if you introduced him as a world's leading authority on young earth creationism I'd be too busy salivating over the prospect of ripping him to shreds rather than making weak excuses for why I can't/won't do it.

Well you always could make that trip to the Creation Museum - and not limit your visit to the Planetarium.

Heck, if I had the money I'd sponsor you to go.
I wouldn't object if you started a "Get-Rogue-Up-To-The-Creation-Museum-To-Debate-Ham" fund :smile:

Though I think we'll need a shorter catchier name

[Jorge]

How about your claim that "they neither feed nor reproduce" out of water which was terminally
rebutted by the fact that mudskippers most certainly do hunt and feed while out of water?

Are you ignoring that part "like the dumb kid that plugs his ears with his fingers and yells,
"La-la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you!"

*******************************************************************************

Unlike you people, I do not practice the "la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you" attitude.

I had ignored it, until now, because you're behaving Pharisee-like (i.e., being
overly-legalistic on the 'letter' instead of focusing on the meaning).

If the mudskipper is in or out of the water and a convenient snack happens to
present itself, they try to gobble it up. That, however, wasn't the point.

ALL fish - mudskippers, Mangrove Killfishes, etc. - are fishes because out of
or without water they are D-E-A-D in relatively little time. Mudskippers, e.g.,
have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth and
pharynx but only when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid
habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing,
similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.


The point that in typical, sophomoric fashion you people were here attacking was the
claim "Fish out of water, Fish Dies – EVERY TIME." That claim is true except by FAITH,
namely, that 'sometime umpteen million years ago a fish permanently came out of the
water and did not die'. You people BELIEVE that - you certainly cannot demonstrate it.

Your (and your comrade's) total lack of rational debate is giving me a headache -- shooo.

Jorge

[SteveF]

ALL fish - mudskippers, Mangrove Killfishes, etc. - are fishes because out of or without water they are D-E-A-D in relatively little time. Mudskippers, e.g.,
have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth and
pharynx but only when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid
habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing,
similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

Your ability to desperately look up wikipedia and then copy stuff in an attempt to make yourself sound vaguely knowledgable, is hugely impressive. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper) (coloured to show the C&P):

The ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth (the mucosa) and throat (the pharynx). This is only possible when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

I particularly enjoyed the way you didn't bother with using "throat", but went with copying the more sciency sounding "pharynx", for a bit of extra cred. Well done.

[rogue06]

*******************************************************************************

Unlike you people, I do not practice the "la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you" attitude.

I had ignored it, until now, because you're behaving Pharisee-like (i.e., being
overly-legalistic on the 'letter' instead of focusing on the meaning).
So... you don't ignore things except when you ignore things. Got it.

Btw, words do have meanings and if we can’t agree on what those meanings are then all communication breaks down. If you don’t like it try saying what you mean rather than glib comments that you are forced to retreat from claiming they were merely sarcasm and everyone else is a moron for not “getting it.”


If the mudskipper is in or out of the water and a convenient snack happens to
present itself, they try to gobble it up. That, however, wasn't the point.
Sorry Jorge, you very clearly asserted that "they neither feed nor reproduce" when they are out of the water which has been shown to be false. If you want to shift the goal posts that's your business but it has been duly noted.


ALL fish - mudskippers, Mangrove Killfishes, etc. - are fishes because out of
or without water they are D-E-A-D in relatively little time. Mudskippers, e.g.,
have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth and
pharynx but only when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid
habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing,
similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

The point that in typical, sophomoric fashion you people were here attacking was the
claim "Fish out of water, Fish Dies – EVERY TIME."
The fish aren’t exactly immortal in the water either Jorge. IOW, “Fish in water, Fish Dies – EVERY TIME.” In fact, I think it’s safe to say that without water you would die in relatively short order (I wonder if you could last 66 days). And if you hadn’t noticed nobody has claimed that lungfish, mudskippers and the like are amphibians though they may be amphibious. And speaking of amphibians, IIRC, they generally don’t do well away from water for long periods of time either. Have they “subscribed to BELIEF system” as well? Are they part of the Grand “Evilutionist” Conspiracy (GEC)?


[/I]That claim is true except by FAITH,
namely, that 'sometime umpteen million years ago a fish permanently came out of the
water and did not die'.
Sorry, I’m getting images of some ancient “Methuselah fish” refusing to die even after all theses eons.


You people BELIEVE that - you certainly cannot demonstrate it.

Your (and your comrade's) total lack of rational debate is giving me a headache -- shooo.

Jorge
:lmbo: Our inability to engage in a rational debate. :lmbo:

Yoo-hoo Jorge. I’m over here so you can quit taking to yourself in the mirror.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I wouldn't object if you started a "Get-Rogue-Up-To-The-Creation-Museum-To-Debate-Ham" fund

Though I think we'll need a shorter catchier name

How about RHF - Rogue's Hambuster Fund?

While you're there (I'm confident we'll raise the necessary finance) please find out why an establishment that presents itself as such a serious bastion of scientific and Scriptural truth has a restaurant that sells "Noahburgers".

[wattsr1]

Yup, I sure did note what it said! Apparently you did not.

In bolded red letters, you / Birdam claim that this fish can live "indefinitely out of the water".

The article says, "After his studies, he found that the fish can actively survive out of water for
66 days! The fish usually lives in water with low oxygen content. Mud-bottomed ditches,
marshes, and even in heavily polluted salt and fresh water. When these areas dry up, they
move into local logs until more water areas become available."

At the school that I went to, 66 days is NOT "indefinitely".
Why don't you try again, Roland, after you sober up?

Jorge


Is that all you have to say Jorge?


You reckon that all fish begin to die as soon as they leave the water.

I point you to one fish clocked at 66 days out of water, and you quip that the poster I copied it from, used the word "indefinitely"?

Got any response to the real argument here, namely your claim that all fish begin to die as soon as they leave the water? Or have you conveniently forgotten about that?

Now you understand why the alcohol is necessary. It is to match your level of 'logic' and 'clear thinking'.





Regards, Roland

[Dee Dee Warren]

Being a dishonest debater is required to be on staff here.

And you don't want to know what we do with the blokes. Let's put it this way. Jorge was a forum tart at one point.......

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Infidelity to Tweb is punishable by Windows.

[Faid]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Did our scholarly friend actually do that?

Did he just plagiarize wikipedia?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

UN-believable. I guess jorge has reached the point where he knows nothing could further damage his credibility on this forum... He's hit rock bottom.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Can you even plagiarize Wikipedia?

[rogue06]

Can you even plagiarize Wikipedia?
No. I asked awhile back when someone copied and pasted several paragraphs from a wiki article

[rogue06]

No. I asked awhile back when someone copied and pasted several paragraphs from a wiki article
Let me re-phrase that... It isn't a copyright infringement

[Collier]

Some of these posts are fun. Hey - a laugh is good.

But I am interested in Roland's original post. It's fascinating. Bacteria that live in a predictable cycle of conditions can adapt to that cycle and "program" their response ahead of time.

Why not? Isn't that what birds have done?

The only condition is that the bacteria have to be alive. But that's another topic.

[Jorge]

Your ability to desperately look up wikipedia and then copy stuff in an attempt to make yourself sound vaguely knowledgable, is hugely impressive. From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper) (coloured to show the C&P):

The ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth (the mucosa) and throat (the pharynx). This is only possible when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

I particularly enjoyed the way you didn't bother with using "throat", but went with copying the more sciency sounding "pharynx", for a bit of extra cred. Well done.



How very, very sad ...
You people are so desperate to vilify me that you'll latch on to just about anything?
To wit : here you wish to accuse me of plagiarism. Here's what I had written :

********************************************

ALL fish - mudskippers, Mangrove Killfishes, etc. - are fishes because out of
or without water they are D-E-A-D in relatively little time. Mudskippers, e.g.,
have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth and
pharynx but only when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid
habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing,
similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

**********************************************

Now take a look at essentially EVERY post that I have ever written here at TWeb
where I use material from some source. What do you see? That's right -
essentially EVERY time I use a different color font - typically green or dark red -
to denote that it comes from a source. True, I did not mention the source here
but given the source and the information used it did not seem that important.
Errr .... not important except to people desperately seeking some technicality
so as to finally 'win' one over on Jorge. You people are pathetic beyond words.
Is such pitiful trivia the best you can come up with?

I need at least a few days' break from you people. :no:

Jorge

[FreezBee]

How very, very sad ...
You people are so desperate to vilify me that you'll latch on to just about anything?
To wit : here you wish to accuse me of plagiarism. Here's what I had written :

********************************************

ALL fish - mudskippers, Mangrove Killfishes, etc. - are fishes because out of
or without water they are D-E-A-D in relatively little time. Mudskippers, e.g.,
have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth and
pharynx but only when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid
habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing,
similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing.

**********************************************

Now take a look at essentially EVERY post that I have ever written here at TWeb
where I use material from some source. What do you see? That's right -
essentially EVERY time I use a different color font - typically green or dark red -
to denote that it comes from a source. True, I did not mention the source here
but given the source and the information used it did not seem that important.
Errr .... not important except to people desperately seeking some technicality
so as to finally 'win' one over on Jorge. You people are pathetic beyond words.
Is such pitiful trivia the best you can come up with?

I need at least a few days' break from you people. :no:

Jorge

But, Jorge, you forget that mudskippers out of water breathe similar to amphibians and therefore are transitional between fish and amphibians, so your quote negates your own position.

- FreezBee

[MooseOnTheLoose]

mudskippers out of water breathe similar to amphibians and therefore are transitional between fish and amphibians

Naw, they're just funny creatures.

However if you're right then one might buy you a beer in 100 million years or so. (In my local bar I'm sure I've waited longer for someone to get their round of drinks in.)

[FreezBee]

mudskippers out of water breathe similar to amphibians and therefore are transitional between fish and amphibians

Naw, they're just funny creatures.

However if you're right then one might buy you a beer in 100 million years or so. (In my local bar I'm sure I've waited longer for someone to get their round of drinks in.)

But you are are a certified loser :flowers:

- FreezBee

[rogue06]

Want better service? Stand as close as possible to where the bartender mixes the drinks and have your money in hand -- but don’t wave it around trying to get their attention. Instead try to make eye contact. And be sure to tip (over 10% cheapskate) or be prepared to be ignored afterward. I've found being 6'4" makes it easy to get noticed as well - especially with the women bartenders :wink:

[Collier]

Getting back to bacteria...

This morning I got an update from the BBC Canada Shop, advertising their magazine Knowledge. You can click on a free online sample issue (March/April, 2009). One of the articles is entitled “Evolution in Action”.

It is fascinating. Some of you will already be aware of Richard Lenski’s 21-year experiment with E. coli bacteria, but this 4 page article is written in language I can understand with ease. [I appreciate that!] You can get it here: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/BBC/knowledge_200904v2/#/48

Briefly, Lenski subjected the bacteria to “famine” conditions, to see if and how they would adapt. He kept them in a standard laboratory broth, but with only a “meagre supply of glucose”.

E. coli need iron, but can’t take in free iron atoms; so citrate is part of the broth. It binds with the iron in such a way that the bacteria can absorb it. But the bacteria do not use the citrate as FOOD.

By the end of 31,000 generations [from 1988 to 2001), one of the twelve lines of bacteria were using the citrate as a source of food. By the end of 45,000 generations (2008), all of the bacteria were growing 75% faster than their “ancestors” 20 years earlier. They had adapted to the new conditions.

This, it seems to me, is just one more confirmation that Darwin’s special theory of evolution was accurate.

It does nothing at all towards proving Darwin’s GENERAL theory. In fact, if you think about it, it seems to do just the opposite.

[wattsr1]

Getting back to bacteria...

This morning I got an update from the BBC Canada Shop, advertising their magazine Knowledge. You can click on a free online sample issue (March/April, 2009). One of the articles is entitled “Evolution in Action”.

It is fascinating. Some of you will already be aware of Richard Lenski’s 21-year experiment with E. coli bacteria, but this 4 page article is written in language I can understand with ease. [I appreciate that!] You can get it here: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/BBC/knowledge_200904v2/#/48

Briefly, Lenski subjected the bacteria to “famine” conditions, to see if and how they would adapt. He kept them in a standard laboratory broth, but with only a “meagre supply of glucose”.

E. coli need iron, but can’t take in free iron atoms; so citrate is part of the broth. It binds with the iron in such a way that the bacteria can absorb it. But the bacteria do not use the citrate as FOOD.

By the end of 31,000 generations [from 1988 to 2001), one of the twelve lines of bacteria were using the citrate as a source of food. By the end of 45,000 generations (2008), all of the bacteria were growing 75% faster than their “ancestors” 20 years earlier. They had adapted to the new conditions.

This, it seems to me, is just one more confirmation that Darwin’s special theory of evolution was accurate.

It does nothing at all towards proving Darwin’s GENERAL theory. In fact, if you think about it, it seems to do just the opposite.IIRC Collier, the experiment was set up to test a philosophical aspect of ToE, namely are the outcomes of evolution repeatable.

There has been an ongoing debate concerning the issue of rewinding "the tape" (Gould's term for it), and watching what happens. Do brand new outcomes occur or does the system repeat itself (in broad terms) with respect to outcomes?


Regards, Roland

[Collier]

Gotcha.

I'm ashamed to ask, but what does IIRC mean?

[MooseOnTheLoose]

But you are are a certified loser

- FreezBee

I'm waiting to be naturally selected.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Want better service? Stand as close as possible to where the bartender mixes the drinks and have your money in hand -- but don’t wave it around trying to get their attention. Instead try to make eye contact. And be sure to tip (over 10% cheapskate) or be prepared to be ignored afterward. I've found being 6'4" makes it easy to get noticed as well - especially with the women bartenders

No tipping in British bars. The beer already costs enough.

[wattsr1]

Gotcha.
Ouch.


I'm ashamed to ask, but what does IIRC mean?IIRC = If I Remember Correctly.

IOW = In Other Words.

AFAICT = As Far As I Can Tell.


AFAIK = As Far As I Know


AFAIAC = As Far As I Am Concerned.


My Net vocabulary runs out after this.




Regards, Roland

[Collier]

Thank you. It's nice to be able to recognize some Net vocabulary, though I'll probably stick with the Gross stuff myself. At my age, it's hard to learn a new language.

Forget the "Ouch". I just meant I understand what you're saying. I think. Possibly.

MC

[Collier]

Has anyone read this from behavioral/brain sciences? It isn't about bacteria - maybe the other end of the scale.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[wattsr1]

At my age, it's hard to learn a new language.
I am beginning to find all this out myself. :teeth:



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

Has anyone read this from behavioral/brain sciences? It isn't about bacteria - maybe the other end of the scale.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This is a bit like the new field of evolutionary psychology. Every one seems to have an opinion and can argue their case well. In the end, I throw up my hands and become inclinded to wait for a bit, until the dust settles.

The problem in this particular case (as with evolutionary psychology, as with the argument between dualism and monism (?) with respect to the mind) is that we are dealing with the mind and consciousness. And that is very murky territory indeed. While a materialist myself, (i.e. mind is the product of particular arrangements of matter, if I can put it so crudely), I enjoy listening to both sides of the argument and when trying to formulate a reasonable opinion, end up arguing with myself. (So far I haven't lost an argument yet. But I haven't won one either.)

For these reasons, I tend to feel happier with good old material genes and how they change over time.




Regards, Roland

[SteveF]

How very, very sad ...
You people are so desperate to vilify me that you'll latch on to just about anything?
To wit : here you wish to accuse me of plagiarism.

Now take a look at essentially EVERY post that I have ever written here at TWeb
where I use material from some source. What do you see? That's right -
essentially EVERY time I use a different color font - typically green or dark red -
to denote that it comes from a source. True, I did not mention the source here
but given the source and the information used it did not seem that important.
Errr .... not important except to people desperately seeking some technicality
so as to finally 'win' one over on Jorge. You people are pathetic beyond words.
Is such pitiful trivia the best you can come up with?

I need at least a few days' break from you people. :no:

Jorge

So let me get this straight, you copy and past something, don't include quote tags or quotation marks and don't provide the source and then have the audacity to rant at me. Once again, very amusing.

Oh and out of interest, why did you do a slightly abridged C&P? Did you hope that by keeping pharynx but not throat in, people would be impressed by your attempt to sound sciency?

BTW, are you going to stop being a coward at any point:

http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23