Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

I thought you would say something like that. Do you think for one instant that the atoms that make up a horse follow a different set of rules than the atoms that make up an amoeba? Would taking an amino acid from an amoeba and switching it with the same amino acid from a horses cell change the way the horses cell behaves?

Umm, do you see the world around you? Here is an example that a human should understand: Humans have ideas all day long. They come from eachother and from comparing existing ideas to nature and human experience. Everything we encounter molds our minds (even if it is imperceptible to the mind that is molded). Sometimes someone has a great idea, but is not in a position to share it with the rest of humanity. This idea goes unnoticed and fades into oblivion. Sometimes someone has a terrible idea, but this one also fades into oblivion. Sometimes someone has a great idea, and it somehow takes hold and gains influence upon a portion of humanity. Sometimes someone has a terrible idea and it spreads through a group of people. Sometimes the terrible ideas come first, sometimes the good ideas come first. Sometimes the terrible and great ideas are combined into one distorted idea (catholicism). This is the way of evolution of ideas.

There are zillions of ideas being thought of every day. Some good for humanity, some bad. Sometimes someone with a bad idea gets into a position of power (Hitler with 'Kill all the Jews') and promotes their bad idea. Sometimes a good idea is promoted by people in power. There are still people in power who promote bad ideas because these ideas benefit them (although at a cost to the rest of humanity), but hopefully, because of the internet and the availability of knowledge, these ideas will be exposed for what they are and the good ideas (internet, peace, wisdom, love) will overthrow the bad ideas.

Let's look at the authoritarian method of thought vs. the scientific method of thought (both are based on very simple ideas). Authoritarian method: except what you are told from a central authority, do not doubt this central authority (the bible being an example of a central authority). Scientific method: Rigorously question all ideas, forever (because at some point you might find a better one), however, use the ones that pass the test until a better idea comes along (Newtonian progressed to Einsteinian physics, creationism progressed into evolution). Which of these ideas seem to work better (that is, cause more benefits to humanity): accept everything from a central authority, or rigorously question ideas to test them for viability?

Sometimes a great work is established that has great ideas and terrible ideas within it. Because of all of the great ideas that live in this work, the terrible ideas are accepted as great without questioning them out of respect for the authority of this work and the ones that established it. Do you know what work I refer too?

That isn't as likely as some lifeform evolving and making a statue of david.

Thats totally wrong. "It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution. " from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

 

No no.. that actually is a valid argument [and my lethal 'no-brain' was a poor example.. hehe.. so lets say a 'really stupid fish]

And the interesting thing is - this is partly why Evolutionists changed the story.
IF you had fish with 'partially formed' lung tissues loaded into their guts - its pretty clear they would NOT be likely to compete at all.

Its great to say that a each generation of fish could 'benefit' by increasingly longer, harder and more boney fins....
.. but anything but a fully formed knee cap is devastating to the animal.
It will be killed off immediately.

Irreducable complexity (organs, knee's) is a literal 'Show-Stopper' for the entire idea of 'incremental changes'.

So now we have the new 'facts' - A fish with a big long fins gave birth to a fish who had a fully formed knee-cap.

So in a wierd way - the 'Survival of the fittest' doctrine has ended up killing off the old Evolutionists 'Facts'' and starting the new facts.

Even wierder.. The new facts no longer require all those 'billions' of years.
The new Evolution story can happen in a much much shorter period of time.

Unfortunately, there is no known way in which DNA can just spontaneously 'create' a set of lungs or 'know' why and how to do so.

 

Kharakov:

Even though TalkOrigins is notorious for being deceptive and relies heavily on 'persuasive sounding' rebuttals - your link does indeed describe what I did.

The majority of Evolutionists now believe in 'Puncuated Equilibrium'.
Yes.. they can still insist that incremental changes were happening up until the moment of Puncuated Equilibrium - but- they are now stating that 'hopeful monsters' occured.

Now.. to both Amanda and Kharakov: What I was saying with 'Chances' is that there are just as many 'negative' mutations likely to occur to ALL the creatures.
In other words - the same line of Fish 'lucky' enough to have a few kids with lungs are also just as likely to get hit with 'tumours'.

For some uncalled for reason - previous 'chances' arguments always have the 'lucky' fish stay lucky and somehow protected from the laws of 'negative' probability.

Kharakov - I think you chose a very very poor example by comparing Evolution to Humanity.
If anything, you are making a terrific argument for Intelligent Design.

See.. one thing all human ideas have is that they are the product of 'intelligence' (although not necessarily good intelleigence in Hitlers case)

Now honestly.. your analogy would work IF DNA 'knew' what to do, when to do it and 'why' it was beneficial to suddenly build itself the information (idea) that a lung should breathe air, work with ribs, wire itself to the brain etc etc etc.

This is the very reason so many Evolutionists are now joining the 'ID' movement.

As to your claim that:
"That isn't as likely as some lifeform evolving and making a statue of david."

There are many Evolutionists that would disagree with you.
Stephen J Gould described the chances of Molecules turning into Man (by chance) as so fantastic and unlikely that it was nothing short of Miraculous.

[He was later teased endlessly for using the word Miraculous, since he was an agnostic arguing for random chance]

 

science is always changing when new info comes to light. evolution has a luxury that creationism doesnt, it isnt bound by a belief even if it means rejecting facts. creationists cant prove anything so they try and distort evolution. also science is always harder to understand than some 4000 year old myths that rely on magic.

Macroevolution and microevolution
There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution" and "macroevolution", two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population - changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species' coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution - one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don't use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don't pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons - this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error - creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter - and listen to the silence.


Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
As if evolution and evolutionary theory were not already confusing enough, many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.

Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.

Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two - especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed - this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Another related error made by some creationists is the idea that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of the universe while creationism does - and, once again, evolution is inferior to creationism. However, the origins of the universe are even further removed from evolutionary theory than is the origin of life. There is some connection in that scientists seek naturalistic explanations for both, but that is simply due to the fact that they are both scientific pursuits and not because of any inherent relationship such that problems with one will undermine the other.

In both instances described above, the creationists spreading this misunderstanding are doing so for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that they simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, they mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on their attempts to critique it, however.

The second possibility is that some creationists do understand what evolution is and do understand that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe are really relevant to the truth or validity of evolutionary theory. In such cases, the creationists in question are being consciously and deliberately dishonest with their audience. Perhaps they imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, they will be able to gain more support for their own position - a position which is, according to them, more in accordance with the will of God and Christian doctrines.


is evolution scientific?
This question isn't as simple as it sounds, but the short answer is yes, evolution is science. Evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.

Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is evolution consistent?
Yes, evolution is internally consistent. While there are holes and disagreements as to how evolution occurred and there are some gaps in the evidence for evolution, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and the basic understanding of how changes take place in living organisms. Evolution is also externally consistent because, contrary to the claims of some, it does not contradict solid findings in any of the other physical sciences.

Is evolution parsimonious?
Yes, evolution it is completely naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts. Evolution as simply the genetic changes over time does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in science. Evolution as common descent also does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual to add to the universe. So far, the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the current diversity of life on our planet.

Is evolution useful?
Yes, the theory evolution is very useful. It is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine - this means that much of what is done in the medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on and it provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Can the theory of evolution be tested?
Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.

However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.

What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory. Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence for it. The idea of common descent does not rest on one simple idea or single piece of evidence, so to falsify it would require some very significant findings rather than a single bit of anomalous data.

For instance, while finding one fossil in rocks that are much older than would be expected (say, a primate in Precambrian rock) would be improbable, it would be a stretch to say it would falsify evolution. Realistically, one anomaly against all the evidence would be a hard sell, and to be honest, while it would certainly raise issues (and creationists would have a field day), it would probably be chalked up to unknown error.

On the other hand, if a general pattern of finding fossils in rocks reliably dated to much different ages than expected was seen, that would deal a serious blow to the idea of common descent. One possible example of this might be if primate or mammal fossils started consistently turning up in Precambrian rocks - in such a situation, evolution would be in trouble.

What is important to understand here is that evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from a number of different fields. Because of that, a similarly general pattern of contradictory evidence would be required to falsify evolution. Isolated anomalies might at most force a modification of evolutionary theory, but they wouldn't cause it to be dismissed.

Another possible manner in which evolution might be falsified is if our understanding of physics and chemistry changed such that the laws and tests used for determining the age of the earth were found to be incorrect, and new tests showed that the earth was quite young, perhaps on the order of several thousand years. In such an event, the principle of common descent which is the basis of evolutionary theory would be dealt a fatal blow. There are also other any number of other ways in which evolution could be falsified, so there are ways in which the idea of common descent could be invalidated.

Is evolutionary theory correctable and dynamic?
Yes, evolution is dynamic and it is also correctable because it is based solely on the evidence. If the evidence changes so will the theory - as a matter of fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates.

Is evolutionary theory progressive?
The idea that a scientific theory should be "progressive" means that a new scientific theory should build on the scientific theories that came before it. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution certainly does.

Another way to understand how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. Thus, it should be possible to compare several explanations for the same phenomena and find that one does a much better job than the others. Some creationists try to argue that evolution is a "religion" because scientists never consider any possible alternatives, but this is certainly untrue. Figure 1 graphically shows what the basic ideas about origins of life look like.


Competing Theories



Figure 1. The vertical direction is time and the horizontal is change of characteristics of life forms. (a) Common descent; (b) Transformationism. Note that species can change significantly but that they have independent starting points. No common ancestry.; (c), (d) and (e) Creationism. (d) and (e) are creationist explanations for extinctions and/or appearance of new species over time such as are shown in the fossil record. Note that while the creationist paradigms are drawn as straight lines some minor variation might be allowed (i.e. within "kinds".)

A major "competitor" for Darwinian evolution was a theory by Jean-Baptist Lamark published in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). This theory is usually called transformationism. Transformationism proposes that species originated independently (not via common ancestry) but can and have changed significantly since their creation. Lamark's mechanism of evolution is frequently referred to as Lamarkism and has since been discredited, in large part because it is simply not supported by the data.



The general theory of evolution does quite well at meeting the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes - the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory was arrived at using the scientific method.

The general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method and it meets the criteria for scientific theories. Yes, evolution is science and it is scientific.

 

^let that sink in

 

As I said before, I'm no expert.. please don't try and use my arguments against me, because you could well be very correct (because I could easily be saying the wrong thing)...

But the fact remains that there is more evidence for evolution than there is for what the bible tells us (after all, the bible is just one source).

 

I personally do not like the way the terms (or the terms themselves) are used.
MicroEvolution
Macro Evolution.

Creationist Scientists are using the terms and Evolutionists know EXACTLY what they are refering to.
They count on the public to be confused.
They think Creationists are 'conceding' small changes and then pretend to point out that Evolution is simply 'many' small changes leading to bigger ones.

The truth is - Creationists AND Evolutionists believe in 'Natural Selection'.
This is the 'micro-evolution' (i dislike that term) they are speaking of.

To be VERY CLEAR - This is where Genes are SELECTED or NOT SELECTED.

So it can be said there is 'Evolving' going on.

When they say 'MacroEvolution' (again.. bad term because it sounds like just 'more' of the same thing)
They are refering to NEW INFORMATION.

One is a fact which does NOT help, bolster or encourage the other.

So that is why I never use those terms, it 'sounds' like one is simply a 'more' version of the first.

As to the 'Silence' you hear when you ask the question:
"what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter - and listen to the silence."

You hear silence because you have asked an invalid question.

Answer anyways: There is no barrier becasue one does not have anything to do with the other.
Selecting Genes does not, in any way have anything to do with NEW Genes appearing.

 

^they count on facts, the bible counts on blindness. i guess some people are happier ignoring facts.

 

Please, Juggla, give credit where credit is due ...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm
(atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm)

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blevo_abio_myth.htm
(atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blevo_abio_myth.htm)

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm
(atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm)



Darrell

 

^im pretty sure the graph gave away it wasnt my work. also im hispanic were notorious for our laziness.

 

I don't think that he was trying to claim the work as his own.... but he should have posted the links to it's source... even if only to validate what he's saying

 

For now.. dont worry about the Bible.

You should be concerned about facts though.

Natural Selection IS an observable, recordable, testable and repeating facts of life. This is sometimes called 'MicroEvolution'.
[Terrible choice of terminology I say]

This is where PRE-existing genes are selected or not selected.

This, in itself is REDUCING genetic information (overall).

This is going the OPPOSITE of what is sometimes called:

'MacroEvolution'

When Evolutionists or Creationists use the word 'MacroEvolution' use the term they are refering to Beneficial Genetic Mutations where (allegedly) new genes are added to the species.

This is definately NOT a 'fact'.
Its never been observed, recorded or tested.
Fact: It is not 'More' Selection. [which is exactly why the terms 'macro and micro are very poor descriptive terms]

Let me be clear - Beneficial NEW Genes is not 'more selecting'.
Its not selecting at all!

So I will be MORE THAN HAPPY if TalkOrigins would like to stop using those terms.

TalkOrigins WANTS to keep using those terms because they thing 'you think' Macroevolution simply means 'more' MicroEvolution.

 

Liar, it directly refutes your statement "But anyway... modern Evolutionists (approx last 20 years) do not accept that tiny incremental changes could have happened (or exist in the fossil record)."

Well, you successfully ignored what punctuated equilibrium entails. In some cases a very slight change can result in a major change in the whole ecosystem. Check out: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

You couldn't tell that I was comparing the evolution of ideas to the evolution of species?

Humans have ideas all day long. They come from eachother and from comparing existing ideas to nature and human experience. Everything we encounter molds our minds. Sometimes someone has a great idea, but is not in a position to share it with the rest of humanity. This idea goes unnoticed and fades into oblivion. Sometimes someone has a terrible idea, but this one also fades into oblivion. Sometimes someone has a great idea, and it somehow takes hold and gains influence upon a portion of humanity. Sometimes someone has a terrible idea and it spreads through a group of people. Sometimes the terrible ideas come first, sometimes the good ideas come first. Sometimes the terrible and great ideas are combined into one distorted idea (catholicism). This is the way of evolution of ideas.

There are zillions of ideas being thought of every day. Some good for humanity, some bad. Sometimes someone with a bad idea gets into a position of power (Hitler with 'Kill all the Jews') and promotes their bad idea. Sometimes a good idea is promoted by people in power.

The good ideas form a bank of wisdom that humanity draws on, just like the good mutations formed a bank of benefits for us to use. Bad ideas still influence humanity (look at your own ideas) as well as bad mutations. The fact is, good ideas and good mutations favor survival, bad ideas and bad mutations don't, so hopefully they won't stick around forever (which is why creationism is going the way of the dodo). ID? Well.. that's not opposed to evolution at all, unless you are a moron and twist the concept.

A lifeform did evolve and make a statue of david.

Doubt it.

Which molecules? Molecules that have been molded by billions of years of concentrated evolutionary forces, or molecules in an intersteller gas cloud that does not have the right conditions for evolution to occur?

I doubt it, unless it was by someone who does not know the meanings of the word miracle/ miraculous. Miracle also means: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment. Miraculous can also mean: extremely marvelous or unusual.

 

I heard something very interesting about evolution from a TV show not too long ago.. I'll try and represent it here, though (as I said before, not being an expert on this) I might not do is the justice is deserves.

The deal was this, someone asked "if evolution favours the strong, why isn't everyone in the human race built like huge strong muscle men?"

The answer was something along the lines of: all the strong people of a community would be the first ones to go and fight that community's wars, and are therefore the ones most likely to die because of being in direct confrontation. Now of course, not all will die, and so the survivor's genes will be passed down, allowing for the stronger built people of the planet... but so also will the genes of the weaker (and maybe more intelligent) people from that community because they knew where to hide, etc...

As I said, I'd probably botched up what was said, but I think I've got at least the essence of it there.

Quetzalcoatl, you talk about "good" and "bad" changes in evolution, but I don't believe that's the best way of looking at it.. all changes are "natural", and it's all a case of what works... After all, a fish developing lungs for breathing air could be viewed as a "bad" thing, especially for a creature that lives under the sea.. it'll drown...

But of course, that's a very extreme example, because you don't get huge great big leaps in evolution like that, all in one go… but rather millions upon billions of miniature changes (I believe someone described evolution as errors or mutations in DNA when it replicates itself), which all build up together as time goes on, which in turn result in a fish with lungs rather than gills.

Again, I don't profess is fully understand all of this, I'm just trying to help out with the little snip bits that I think I know…

 

Kharakov:

You do believe (by faith) that Molecules evolved into Micheal Angelo. You have made that clear.
I notice you are now reduced to simply 'announcing' Evolution is a fact.
WOwwww.. Your so assertive when you adamantly 'deem' it as a fact - it must be!
Very Scientific!

Amanda: Yes, I can see a lot of things in this Evolutionism Idea that I would agree with.
We always seem to assume its is 'Good' for a JellyFish to have started developing scales and a liver and gills etc etc.

We all seem to have decided this is 'upwards' and that it makes them 'fitter'.

But really.. the simple jellyfish is doing just fine!

They also pointed out the dilema that even the so-called 'evolving upward' creatures run into - they are subject to negative effects going 'against' their supposed improvements.

Interesting.. i will have to see if I can find that programme.
The Evolutionist shows are sometimes fascinating because you can literally watch as they make up - then later abandon what (at the moment) are 'facts'.
Then are 'not true'.

And its not like they are making progress... they just keep changing - its fun!

 

LOL It's called "evolution"

 

Quetzalcoatl

Evolution of life is based in evolution of physical mater.
If the universe started with simple hydrogen
And now contains natural uranium.
Then physical evolution/process is VALID.
How many dispute the current theories of stellar evolution.?
Very few...
Most spend their time trying to disprove LIFE evolution...
Not realising that there is a BASE evolution that alows life in the first place.

Those that clump all evolution into a theory...call it creationism

Creationism is to human understanding..As 'you get aids of toilet seats' is to desease vector theory.

Occam
---------------------

Amanda N

Well said

Occam

 

LOL, I don't know what it is I said well.. but thank you

 

Not at all, you are a liar and a troll, you have completely ignored my argument and failed to make a valid argument of your own.

Troll, please come up with a logical statement that refutes what I have said so that I may learn something (my mind may evolve to a higher state) from the environmental pressure of your words.

Yeah. I guess we could call the changes evolution- and acknowledge that progress is being made with them not by them.