Wating for 2smart to answer.

[Guest Paul]

"Similarity" ??  A gross understatement, WillieBoy.  3 billion unique sets of fingerprints, 3 billion unique pair of irises, etc. goes way beyond similarity. 

  Darwiniacs like to think of themselves as being "enlightened", yet they can't see

the incredible complexity of  billions of unique individuals. They're satisfied to credit serendipity with this incomprehensible degree of complexity.

  A pile of rocks is a great analogy though, Willy.  Good job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trying to have a discussion with 2dim is like reasoning with a rock. I notice you overlooked my post. Not that it would matter, but of course each of us is unique. We have unique DNA, except of course for identical twins. Why do you insist on looking straight past the explanation?

[Guest 2smart4u]

1. Identical twins have the same fingerprints. Guess God considers twins to only count as one person, huh?

2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/06/identity/ <-- fingerprints may not be as unique as has been assumed

Funny that the Theory of Evolution predicts these differences perfectly. It's called mutation (and, in the case of humans and other species that reproduce sexually, mutual inheritance is also a factor).

Your straw man is amusing. Not only do evolutionary scientists see the complexity, but they can actually explain it. That's a lot more than can be said for people like you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Evolutionary scientists" are no more than left wing Darwiniacs that hide behind their cloak of "science". They can come up with a "theory" to support or disprove whatever they happen to believe or don't believe. To suggest that "blind" evolution just happened to stumble upon the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises and DNA, and then somehow blindly know when to stop evolving is absurd. But if Paul believes it then Strife will certainly believe it too.

[Guest Guest]

"Similarity" ??  A gross understatement, WillieBoy.  3 billion unique sets of fingerprints, 3 billion unique pair of irises, etc. goes way beyond similarity. 

  Darwiniacs like to think of themselves as being "enlightened", yet they can't see

the incredible complexity of  billions of unique individuals. They're satisfied to credit serendipity with this incomprehensible degree of complexity.

  A pile of rocks is a great analogy though, Willy.  Good job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Way beyond similarity to what? If there's a better word, use it.

Similarity is the best word to use because it's accurate. We're not the same. We're similar. Just because 2dim4words is left without a single point supporting his argument doesn't mean William used the wrong word.

I hate to call anyone stupid, but 2dim4words truly is a stupid person. He asked a question, it was answered correctly, and he ignores the answer. Worse still, he continues to argue his point as though it hadn't been thoroughly demolished, which it was.

Stupid, I'll spell it out for you: SEXUAL REPRODUCTION. That's why we are unique in the ways that we are. Except, as someone already pointed out to you, for identical twins, who are genetically the same. And even with identical twins, independent consciousness and variations in environment make them unique too, just in a more limited number of ways.

It's not a surprise that 2dim "thinks as he does." His religion teaches him to "think" like this, or perhaps more appropriately teaches him not to think: Decide what you want to believe and hold to it no matter how fantastic or how stupid it is. That's how fundies "think" and are trained to "think." In fact, the more fantastic and stupider something is, the more convinced the fundies are that it is true: after all, no one would make up anything as crazy as what they believe, so it must be true. That's the same a Hitler's big lie principle, and it really does work that way. And then you get people like 2dim4words, who have been conditioned to "think" that way, and there's nothing you can say to them. Reality is what they want it to be, end of discussion. The misplaced word here is not "similarity," but "think," because "think does not describe describe what these fundies are doing. More appropriate words would include react, attack and defend.

I'm sorry, but it's just really frustrating. Reasonable people ought to be able to have a real discussion about nearly anything, but you can't talk to these fundies. They're completely unreasonable, and they make themselves stupid. They're proud of being stupid. They flaunt it. In the end, every one of us is harmed because the fundies help shape our society and our culture just like every group does. We can't afford this much stupid as is displayed by people like 2dim4words.

[Bryan]

The word atheism simply means 'without a belief in gods'. Therefore, by definition, anyone who does not believe in gods is an atheist.

"Atheism" has a number of definitions; the one D-Dave mentions above is a fairly recent one that came about as atheists found they wished to avoid the burden of proof for denying the existence of god.

It can be fun to play with atheists who contend that "god" is an undefinable term, since it puts them in the position of denying belief in something they cannot define (so how can they know they don't believe in it?).

One does not have to categorically deny that gods exist, in order to describe themselves as being atheistic.

Quite true, since words are, after all, only symbols for the meanings we associate with them. Atheists should back up their claims about reality as much as anyone else, however (such as the claim that they don't believe in a god or gods where "god" is not defined).

I can't prove that Zeus, or Thor, or Osiris, or Apollo do not exist, however that does not mean that I must describe myself as being agnostic towards them.

You could, though.

I don't believe that these beings exist, therefore I am atheistic with regards to them.

In common English, the statement that one does not believe in something is typically equivalent to saying that one believes that the something is not true, or does not exist. For example, one who thinks that "Bigfoot" probably is not a real animal distinct from modern humanity (or a bear mistaken for something else) does not typically say that he doesn't believe in Bigfoot. He says something more like "I don't know--but I think it highly unlikely."

I support the atheist's freedom to define himself and his term of self-description however he pleases--but the reality is that the evolution of the term has much to do with the rhetorical battle over the existence of god.

How many Christians or Muslims believe in Thor or Zeus? If they don't, then they are atheistic towards them as well.

That's a nonsense statement. Christians and Muslims, as those terms are ordinarily understood, are theistic (believing in a god or gods). Nobody who believes in a god or gods can be "atheistic" toward anything without further gaming of the term "atheist" into something more like "skeptical" or "disbelieving" (or even returning to the more particular English origins of the term having to do with particular rejection of Christianity in particular--a person could believe in god and still be an atheist in times past).

Atheists just dis-believe in one more god than most theists do. In that regard atheists are simply being more consist[e]nt.

This is another currently popular rhetorical ploy. We think of "consistent" as a good thing, because logical consistency is desirable. The atheist sermon, including D-Dave's presentation of it, evokes that suggestion of logical consistency, but it isn't really logical consistency that he's talking about. He's just talking about being more consistent in denying the existence of (or lacking belief in) particular gods. In terms of logic, this consistency is no more desirable than being consistent in dragging one's feet where there might be a curb nearby.

I'm not saying that D-Dave attempted this misdirection intentionally; I think atheists just got in the habit of using this type of presentation because they noted that the appeal seemed stronger with this type of wording. It's possible that the technique evolved without the arguers being conscious of the implicit evocation of logical superiority.

My point was only that someone does not need to categorically deny the existence of gods to describe themself as being an atheist.

Even Richard Dawkins does not categorically deny the remote possibility that gods may exist, but he could not be described as being anything but an atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He could be called an agnostic if he allows that a god or gods might exist. But he can wear whatever label he likes so far as I'm concerned.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

[Autonomous]

A pile of rocks is a great analogy though, Willy.  Good job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it is. Glad you could see it. It points out that you are simply making an unsupported assertion. You're in effect saying "Nature cannot create billions of unique individuals." Why not? Have you ever made rock candy? It forms through the crystallization process. By your logic every piece of rock candy made in the same way should be identical. But they aren't. No two snowflakes are alike, etc., etc. This doesn't show that God is behind each one, it shows that nature is not a xerox machine. Above the molecular level, can you give a single example of exact replication in nature? Even eukaryotes show some variation.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Trying to have a discussion with 2dim is like reasoning with a rock. I notice you overlooked my post. Not that it would matter, but of course each of us is unique. We have unique DNA, except of course for identical twins. Why do you insist on looking straight past the explanation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While there's no denying evolution and natural selection, there is NO "natural selection" explanation for the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.

Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.

A "blind" natural selection process could not have "invented" fingerprints, etc., there would have been no need for this uniqueness in the survivability needs of creatures.

To suggest that there is no intelligent design associated with the evolutionary process, you have to be a stone-cold Darwiniac. Are you listening, Strife ?

[Guest Guest]

(1) "Atheism" has a number of definitions; the one D-Dave mentions above is a fairly recent one that came about as atheists found they wished to avoid the burden of proof for denying the existence of god.

It can be fun to play with atheists who contend that "god" is an undefinable term, since it puts them in the position of denying belief in something they cannot define (so how can they know they don't believe in it?).

Quite true, since words are, after all, only symbols for the meanings we associate with them.  Atheists should back up their claims about reality as much as anyone else, however (such as the claim that they don't believe in a god or gods where "god" is not defined).

You could, though.

(2) In common English, the statement that one does not believe in something is typically equivalent to saying that one believes that the something is not true, or does not exist.  For example, one who thinks that "Bigfoot" probably is not a real animal distinct from modern humanity (or a bear mistaken for something else) does not typically say that he doesn't believe in Bigfoot.  He says something more like "I don't know--but I think it highly unlikely."

I support the atheist's freedom to define himself and his term of self-description however he pleases--but the reality is that the evolution of the term has much to do with the rhetorical battle over the existence of god.

That's a nonsense statement.  Christians and Muslims, as those terms are ordinarily understood, are theistic (believing in a god or gods).  Nobody who believes in a god or gods can be "atheistic" toward anything without further gaming of the term "atheist" into something more like "skeptical" or "disbelieving" (or even returning to the more particular English origins of the term having to do with particular rejection of Christianity in particular--a person could believe in god and still be an atheist in times past).

This is another currently popular rhetorical ploy.  We think of "consistent" as a good thing, because logical consistency is desirable.  The atheist sermon, including D-Dave's presentation of it, evokes that suggestion of logical consistency, but it isn't really logical consistency that he's talking about.  He's just talking about being more consistent in denying the existence of (or lacking belief in) particular gods.  In terms of logic, this consistency is no more desirable than being consistent in dragging one's feet where there might be a curb nearby.

I'm not saying that D-Dave attempted this misdirection intentionally; I think atheists just got in the habit of using this type of presentation because the. y noted that the appeal seemed stronger with this type of wording.  It's possible that the technique evolved without the arguers being conscious of the implicit evocation of logical superiority.

(3) He could be called an agnostic if he allows that a god or gods might exist.  But he can wear whatever label he likes so far as I'm concerned.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical Bryan double-speak. First (1) he acknowledges that words have multiple meanings, which is true, but would have held more integrity had he not tried to guess at other people's motives and dismiss all legitimate reasons for drawing the distinction Dave draws. Then (2) he tries to "back his opponent" (which, as he has made clear, is how he sees everyone who disagrees with him) into the narrow little corner of his (Bryan's) definition. Finally (3) he reminds us how reasonable he has been, even though he hasn't. He gives lip service to letting other people define themselves and their ideas, and then he presumes to do it for them. Typical Bryan. A real ability to think, completely wasted on sophistry.

[Strife767]

"Evolutionary scientists" are no more than left wing Darwiniacs that hide behind their cloak of "science".

Okay, show the falseness of the science on this page, if you can:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

They can come up with a "theory" to support or disprove whatever they happen to believe or don't believe.

Not if the evidence doesn't fit it.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

To suggest that "blind" evolution just happened to stumble upon the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises and DNA,

Argument from personal incredulity--not only that, but if people were all 100% identical, that would be great evidence AGAINST evolution, simpleton.

and then somehow blindly know when to stop evolving is absurd.

What are you talking about? Evolution hasn't stopped.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

But if Paul believes it then Strife will certainly believe it too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither of us "believe" it. We ACCEPT it based on the evidence. Just because you refuse to see the evidence people keep putting right in front of you doesn't mean it's not there. Open your eyes.

[Guest Guest]

While there's no denying evolution and natural selection, there is NO "natural selection" explanation for the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.

  Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. 

  A "blind" natural selection process could not have "invented" fingerprints, etc., there would have been no need for this uniqueness in the survivability needs of creatures.

  To suggest that there is no intelligent design associated with the evolutionary process, you have to be a stone-cold Darwiniac. Are you listening, Strife ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your dimness, you just overlooked everything Paul wrote, and in the process confirmed the fact that you don't understand a single thing about evolution. You can't just dogmatically assert that there was never a survival advantage to having fingerprints. Science doesn't work like that, which of course wouldn't stop you since you are woefully ignorant of science and are being driven by your religious agenda, not the facts. And you can't assume anything in particular from the fact that each set of fingerprints is unique (except in identical twins), except for the fact that our DNA is also unique, each of us being the product of sexual reproduction.

Having unique fingerprints (as opposed to non-unique fingerprints) has nothing to do with our ability to survive and everything to do with the fact that we are products of sexual reproduction. Evolution is more than just selection, which addresses another part of the process. Uniqueness of fingerprints probably doesn't carry a survival advantage, but it is a byproduct of sexual reproduction and entirely to be expected.

Fingerprints themselves, on the other hand, probably do carry adaptive advantages. Fingers certainly do. So does the skin covering them. Many species have no fingerprints. Others do. The fact that the skin on our fingerprints has grooves in it suggests that this development assisted in fine sensation in our species given its circumstances when the adaptation appeared. See http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-04/ns_hll.html

By no means does this disprove evolutionary theory or prove that there is a god. The fact that we're still learning about this only means that this is science. That's how science works. We don't start out knowing all the answers. Nothing in science leads us to a purposeful creator.

[Guest Guest]

Trying to have a discussion with 2dim is like reasoning with a rock. I notice you overlooked my post. Not that it would matter, but of course each of us is unique. We have unique DNA, except of course for identical twins. Why do you insist on looking straight past the explanation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How ofter do you criticize others for name calling but then call someone a slang of the name (2dim) he or she uses here. You try to think of yourself as better than all of the people here, and try to come across as some sort of expert on everything, but you still like to sling the mud when it is not in your favor. You are still an embarrassment to Kearny and that will never change. Stop the name calling. You did not like it when it was directed toward your family so do not direct it towards others.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Way beyond similarity to what? If there's a better word, use it.

Similarity is the best word to use because it's accurate. We're not the same. We're similar. Just because 2dim4words is left without a single point supporting his argument doesn't mean William used the wrong word.

I hate to call anyone stupid, but 2dim4words truly is a stupid person. He asked a question, it was answered correctly, and he ignores the answer. Worse still, he continues to argue his point as though it hadn't been thoroughly demolished, which it was.

Stupid, I'll spell it out for you: SEXUAL REPRODUCTION. That's why we are unique in the ways that we are. Except, as someone already pointed out to you, for identical twins, who are genetically the same. And even with identical twins, independent consciousness and variations in environment make them unique too, just in a more limited number of ways.

It's not a surprise that 2dim "thinks as he does." His religion teaches him to "think" like this, or perhaps more appropriately teaches him not to think: Decide what you want to believe and hold to it no matter how fantastic or how stupid it is. That's how fundies "think" and are trained to "think." In fact, the more fantastic and stupider something is, the more convinced the fundies are that it is true: after all, no one would make up anything as crazy as what they believe, so it must be true. That's the same a Hitler's big lie principle, and it really does work that way. And then you get people like 2dim4words, who have been conditioned to "think" that way, and there's nothing you can say to them. Reality is what they want it to be, end of discussion. The misplaced word here is not "similarity," but "think," because "think does not describe describe what these fundies are doing. More appropriate words would include react, attack and defend.

I'm sorry, but it's just really frustrating. Reasonable people ought to be able to have a real discussion about nearly anything, but you can't talk to these fundies. They're completely unreasonable, and they make themselves stupid. They're proud of being stupid. They flaunt it. In the end, every one of us is harmed because the fundies help shape our society and our culture just like every group does. We can't afford this much stupid as is displayed by people like 2dim4words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rectum remarks.

[Guest DingoDave]

Paul wrote:

I respect your right to have and express your opinion, but the content of your opinions and the manner in which you come to them does not earn you any respect. None.

People may be entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

"Atheism" has a number of definitions; the one D-Dave mentions above is a fairly recent one that came about as atheists found they wished to avoid the burden of proof for denying the existence of god.

I have the burden of proof for denying the existence of gods? WTF?

Do I have the burden of proof for denying the existence of leprechauns?

How about unicorns of fairies, or the celestial teapot, which I’m told is in orbit around Pluto?

It is the person who makes the claim for the existence of something who has the burden of proof Bryan, and I don’t for one minute believe that you’re not aware of this.

If it were otherwise, then we would find ourselves obliged to accept just about any ridiculous idea that someone might decide to pull out of his or her hat.

It appears that you will stoop to using just about any dishonest rhetorical ploy in your attempts to win an argument, and to shore up your outlandish bronze age superstitions.

But in your mind I guess that it’s all right because you’re lying for Jesus.

Oh, that’s right, there are some people who do accept the most outrageous nonsense and then claim that we sceptics have the responsibility to categorically disprove it.

You just did, didn’t you?

[Strife767]

How ofter do you criticize others for name calling but then call someone a slang of the name (2dim) he or she uses here. You try to think of yourself as better than all of the people here, and try to come across as some sort of expert on everything, but you still like to sling the mud when it is not in your favor.

But it is in our 'favor'--"2smart4u" is an ignoramus, and his alias is ironic, so we (I don't know who first started calling him "2dim4words," but I know it wasn't Paul) made it more accurate.

You are still an embarrassment to Kearny and that will never change.  Stop the name calling.

Now the irony here is just hilarious, telling someone to not call others names while doing so in an adjacent sentence.

You did not like it when it was directed toward your family so do not direct it towards others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think a dopey rearranging of someone's online alias can compare to a death threat, sorry. How much more obvious could your bias be?

[Guest Paul]

How ofter do you criticize others for name calling but then call someone a slang of the name (2dim) he or she uses here. You try to think of yourself as better than all of the people here, and try to come across as some sort of expert on everything, but you still like to sling the mud when it is not in your favor.  You are still an embarrassment to Kearny and that will never change.  Stop the name calling. You did not like it when it was directed toward your family so do not direct it towards others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't generally call names, but when someone posts as "2smart4u," it does invite comment. Some very nasty people, including you I believe, thought they were going to have this discussion on their terms, but that hasn't happened, now has it, and that's because we fought back. Beyond that, 2dim's identity is not generally known, so it's not the same thing as calling names of someone whose identity is known, and they haven't invited it. Third, his/her remarks are consistently of an exceptionally poor quality, thus further inviting comment. Fourth, I don't believe you'd be saying any of this except for the fact that you don't agree with me and don't like what happened when my son successfully faced some people down, with my support. Fifth, you don't direct what I write. Finally, there are people who think we are not an embarrassment, but that you are. But why should you care? You don't have the courage or the integrity to reveal your identity.

[Guest Guest]

Yes it is. Glad you could see it. It points out that you are simply making an unsupported assertion. You're in effect saying "Nature cannot create billions of unique individuals." Why not? Have you ever made rock candy? It forms through the crystallization process. By your logic every piece of rock candy made in the same way should be identical. But they aren't. No two snowflakes are alike, etc., etc. This doesn't show that God is behind each one, it shows that nature is not a xerox machine. Above the molecular level, can you give a single example of exact replication in nature? Even eukaryotes show some variation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nature ?? Is that Mother Nature or Father Nature ?? Did they ever have children ?? If they did, maybe the kids did the snowflake thing.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You don't know a thing about evolution. Obviously you haven't read any of the significant writings on it, not even an introductory text. The answer to your question is that we are unique because each of us is the product of a unique combination of genetic material generated through a process known as sexual reproduction. If you took the time to look at reproduction, you'd see that non-sexual species are the same, while sexually reproducing species are not. And whether you realize it or not, that includes many plants.

The way I see it, if there was a god:

(1) We wouldn't be carnivores either now or at any time in our history. Food would be food, not a lamb or a chicken or Uncle Joe. (We have been food for other species for most of our history, and sometimes we still are.) Much to my utter shock, you made a reasonably good point just a few days ago (for the first time since I started posting here eight months ago) about the fact that we don't have to be carnivores. You completely missed Strife's point, but at least you got the facts right for once. The point, however, is that if there was a god, sentient creatures wouldn't eat other sentient creatures to survive, ever, let alone as a matter of course. Even if you wanted to throw a curse on human beings (which another reason I don't believe the Judeo-Christian narrative), there'd still be no reason for mistreating the animals. Ever see a cat play with a mouse and then slowly kill it? Watch that and tell me there's a god who made those two species act like that, particularly the cat. Why? No one in his right mind would do it that way on purpose.

(2) Illness wouldn't be arbitrarily handed out without regard to personal merit, which it obviously is. In fact, it's hard to understand why there should be illness at all. If there was a god who wanted to make his point about our behaving ourselves, he'd leave us down here until we got it right. There's a big difference between having to sweat to earn bread and dying of cancer that has metastasized to the bone.

(3) What's with the digestive system, especially the tail end of it (so to speak)? You're telling me someone made us like this on purpose? What kind of a sick sense of humor would that be?

All of nature proves evolution. Every fossil matches the DNA record just as we would expect it to --- and you can't say scientists conformed the DNA record to the fossil record, because they made their predictions from the fossils before they were sophisticated enough to isolate the key elements in the DNA - and then when they could analyze the DNA, it matched their predictions. That's proof. All the dating methods confirm the predictions, too. Millions and millions of data, and they all fit together like a hand in a glove, and I don't mean OJ's glove. And look at us humans. Why do men have nipples? Why is the clitoris in the same location as the penis? Why are some people born sexually ambiguous? It's because our early zygotic and fetal development very nearly traces evolutionary history. So sexual organs don't become recognizable one way or the other until significantly into the pregnancy. Look sometime at what a human fetus looks like at each stage of its development, and then compare that to development of fetuses from other species - you'll see a similarity too striking to pass off as mere chance.

What frustrates me more than anything else is that you're commenting on something you know nothing about. You use the term "Darwiniacs" to dismiss a lot of people who know far more about this subject and (I hate to burst your bubble) are vastly smarter than you are. Study the subject honestly and in sufficient to FORM an opinion. THEN draw your conclusions. All you've done is predetermine your conclusions from your wishes. Don't argue this here. You don't have the tools to do it. Think about it in the privacy of your own head. Then when you have the tools, come back and discuss it. Until then, you may get some amens from the people who agree with you, but I guarantee you that you're not doing anything for those of us who know this subject better than you do, except confirming that you're entirely willing to draw absolutely rock-firm conclusions from complete ignorance and on the basis of nothing. In short, you're not winning our respect, and there's no reason why we should respect your way of thinking beyond respecting the right of every person to have an opinion - I respect your right to have and express your opinion, but the content of your opinions and the manner in which you come to them does not earn you any respect. None.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is easily the most hilarious post I've ever read. Paul really outdid himself on this one (I'm thinking he was swigging Kool-aid while he was typing).

Let me get this straight, if there was a God, he wouldn't want us to eat chicken or hot dogs ? God "hands out" illnesses " ? If there was a God, he wouldn't let a cat play with a mouse ??

Paul, if you can't see how absolutely moronic your post was, then I seriously question your sanity. It's one thing to be an atheist, but your rantings are bordering on lunacy.

[WilliamK]

While there's no denying evolution and natural selection, there is NO "natural selection" explanation for the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, natural selection doesn't explain that. In much the same way that continental drift does not explain why the earth's crust is made up of plates floating on magma.

Genetic variation is a cause of natural selection, not an effect of it. It can cause trends to emerge from that variation, but does not cause the variation itself. There are explanations for why genetic variations occur, but there's no good reason to expect or demand that explanation to come from natural selection.

And one other point. Even if there was no explanation at all, "unexplained" does not equal "God did it". And yet, that's usually where we find God lurking. Just outside the reach of what we understand, in the realm of our ignorance. Even the most brilliant minds are capable of that particular folly.

There's a very thoughtful and intelligent discussion of that here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713

[Autonomous]

While there's no denying evolution and natural selection, there is NO "natural selection" explanation for the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.

  Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. 

  A "blind" natural selection process could not have "invented" fingerprints, etc., there would have been no need for this uniqueness in the survivability needs of creatures.

  To suggest that there is no intelligent design associated with the evolutionary process, you have to be a stone-cold Darwiniac. Are you listening, Strife ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was really hoping you'd explain why uniqueness somehow disproves evolution, but oh well. Guess I'll just destroy yet another of your theories.

Of course evolution doesn't explain the uniqueness of fingerprints. It has nothing to do with it. As others have said, it is because of sexual reproduction. Since you don't understand that, I'll explain further.

In sexual reproduction, both parents provide genetic material for the offspring. Therefore, the offspring is identical to neither.

Of course, this isn't a simple cut-and-paste job. My parents are both dark haired. Therefore, you would guess any children they produced would be dark haired as well. You would be correct for the first two, but my youngest brother is blond. This is because my mother carries genes from her father, who was blond and light-skinned. Because of the nature of genetics (I bet I'll have to explain this later) this gene skipped her to surface in her offspring.

Because no one else shares my parents' unique genetic histories, no one else would produce children with identical fingerprints, irises, etc. They are unique precisely because of the randomness inherent in sexual reproduction, yet you are trying to use this uniqueness to prove a lack of randomness. This is why we laugh at you.

Now I see that with this...

Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

..you seem to think that evolution has a way of dumping traits with no survival value. It doesn't, which is why we carry around junk DNA. In fact, if evolution had dumped useless traits that might be an indicator of an intelligent designer.

[Autonomous]

Nature ??  Is that Mother Nature or Father Nature ?? Did they ever have children ?? If they did, maybe the kids did the snowflake thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Translation from Idiotese-"I cannot respond in an intelligent manner, so I'll post random nonsense."

[Guest 2smart4u]

That's right, natural selection doesn't explain that. In much the same way that continental drift does not explain why the earth's crust is made up of plates floating on magma.

Genetic variation is a cause of natural selection, not an effect of it. It can cause trends to emerge from that variation, but does not cause the variation itself. There are explanations for why genetic variations occur, but there's no good reason to expect or demand that explanation to come from natural selection.

And one other point. Even if there was no explanation at all, "unexplained" does not equal "God did it". And yet, that's usually where we find God lurking. Just outside the reach of what we understand, in the realm of our ignorance. Even the most brilliant minds are capable of that particular folly.

There's a very thoughtful and intelligent discussion of that here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it with Darwiniacs that they cling to this rediculous notion that the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. is simply a result of chance. Every human that's ever lived on earth (4 billion ?) has had fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc. that were different from any other human that ever existed. The magnatude of this defies comprehension. Yet "Evolutionary Scientists" (Atheist Darwiniacs with a title) love to come up with theories explaining this while ignoring the truth (God

did it).

[Guest Guest]

But it is in our 'favor'--"2smart4u" is an ignoramus, and his alias is ironic, so we (I don't know who first started calling him "2dim4words," but I know it wasn't Paul) made it more accurate.

Now the irony here is just hilarious, telling someone to not call others names while doing so in an adjacent sentence.

I don't think a dopey rearranging of someone's online alias can compare to a death threat, sorry. How much more obvious could your bias be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There you go with the name calling again. Being an embarrassment and name calling are two different things. You should talk about being an online alias? You never did tell who you are so stop thowing stones about that comment. Who ever said anything about a death threat? That is nothing about what this is about? It had to do with name calling. Get your facts right.

[Guest Guest]

I don't generally call names, but when someone posts as "2smart4u," it does invite comment. Some very nasty people, including you I believe, thought they were going to have this discussion on their terms, but that hasn't happened, now has it, and that's because we fought back. Beyond that, 2dim's identity is not generally known, so it's not the same thing as calling names of someone whose identity is known, and they haven't invited it. Third, his/her remarks are consistently of an exceptionally poor quality, thus further inviting comment. Fourth, I don't believe you'd be saying any of this except for the fact that you don't agree with me and don't like what happened when my son successfully faced some people down, with my support. Fifth, you don't direct what I write. Finally, there are people who think we are not an embarrassment, but that you are. But why should you care? You don't have the courage or the integrity to reveal your identity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony is that there is usually 45 minutes between when Strife posts and when you reply or visa versa. Coincidence? I think not. Several times you have called people names and there is no denying that. Whether someone goes by the name 2smart4you, or Strife or Paul or even Guest, a common courtesy should be given to a response, no matter what it is. And by opening yourself up here with the kind of rhetoric you present here, you should expect comments back and there is no reason for me to present myself anymore than Strife tells who he is? It is not important who I am as Guest or who anyone is that posts here. It is a public forum and except of a very few, the identities here are all anonymous.

You speak of integrity but refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance. You are correct you in one comment. Your son did face down some people, but only after your threat of lawsuit. That is courageous in his behalf, don't you think? If only you could do good for this town instead of trying to bring it down.

[Strife767]

There you go with the name calling again.

I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. Deal with it.

Being an embarrassment and name calling are two different things.  You should talk about being an online alias?  You never did tell who you are so stop thowing stones about that comment.

lol, looks like what I actually said went right over your head. Try again--my criticism was not for merely having an online alias, doofus.

Who ever said anything about a death threat?

You did, when you tried to draw a parallel between what the LaClair family has had directed at it with Paul and others poking fun at an arrogant, dopey, and ironic online alias.

That is nothing about what this is about? It had to do with name calling.  Get your facts right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that it's not a fact that a member of the LaClair family has had a death threat "directed at" him?

[Strife767]

The irony is that there is usually 45 minutes between when Strife posts and when you reply or visa versa. Coincidence? I think not.

LOL, if you had spent any amount of time on this forum, you'd know that several hours, sometimes days (!), pass between making a post and it appearing. It is literally impossible for one of us to reply to the other within such a short amount of time.

Good going.

Several times you have called people names and there is no denying that.  Whether someone goes by the name 2smart4you, or Strife or Paul or even Guest, a common courtesy should be given to a response, no matter what it is.

I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. I give the same level of respect/courtesy as the person/post I am replying to. Funny how you have absolutely NO criticism of "2smart4u" despite his much more disrespectful history of posting (and much of my (for one) replies are in reaction to that lack of respect, not the other way around). Your bias is clear; you're not fooling anyone.

You speak of integrity but refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Wow, it takes such integrity to stand and recite some verse. Integrity is a function of morality, and saying (or not saying) a few words isn't moral or immoral. Action is what defines morality, not mere words.

You are correct you in one comment. Your son did face down some people, but only after your threat of lawsuit.

So when Matthew took Paszkiewicz and Somma into that meeting, there was already a "threat of lawsuit?" Or possibly you think that him taking Paszkiewicz to task in front of the principal doesn't count? Either way, this claim is nonsense.

That is courageous in his behalf, don't you think?  If only you could do good for this town instead of trying to bring it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trying to maintain quality education in our public schools is "trying to bring it down?" What a silly accusation.