posted
I'm starting to disagree with your tone, Mucus (which may be unintentional; I know how nuance gets lost around here). But the problem remains: you are comparing someone using a stopwatch and a ruler to test for gravity with a highly technical concept like genetic sequencing. They are not the same, and I would guess that genetic data is still subject to interpretation. You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
I think he's inviting you to learn more about these subjects and he's suggesting that it may be *necessary* to learn more before you dismiss the entire field as a hoax.
It's not necessary, however, to get a graduate degree in genetics to do this though. Many of us are not working scientists, but have taken it upon ourselves to educate ourselves in this area because we find it fascinating stuff. The fact that you are willing to engage in a debate on the subject indicates that you might also find it fascinating enough to pursue.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required?
It's not required, but it fits the data better than any other explanation. If you want to give God credit for the random mutations and say, essentially, that God directed evolution, that's not inconsistent with the theory, it just isn't a necessary addition as it provides no additional explanatory power. We don't find better drugs to combat virii if we assume that their resistance to previous drugs was directed by God.
Evolution says that (apparently) random mutations occurred and were selected for. It seems to be quite possible *without* any external force, but it doesn't explicitly exclude external force.
And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity (in the sense that a human is more complex than a bacterium, and a bacterium is more complex than a pool of amino acids; so please don't ask me to define complexity anymore!) I've yet to see anyone give me an example that it is. I know what's coming: you think I've been given examples and I'm just ignoring them. I'm telling you that they are only good example to someone who believe in the first place the theory they purportedly explain.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity
What you seem to disagree with is not that randomness can increase complexity, but that randomness can produce sufficient complexity. Is this correct?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I am learning more about these subjects, Matt. What I have learned has resulted in a further cementing of my belief that a supernatural force created everything. I don't think the field is a hoax, anymore that the Ptolemaic model of the universe was a hoax. But I do think it is the history of scientific paradigms repeating itself.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity
What you seem to disagree with is not that randomness can increase complexity, but that randomness can produce sufficient complexity. Is this correct?
I don't know that it can't, and I've heard plenty of examples about how it could, but I have yet to be shown anything conclusive that shows that it has.
[edit] I should add ---and this is key to my skepticism--- that I have seen firsthand an overwhelming preponderance of the fact that randomness decreases complexity. Your theory requires I believe something other than what my every encounter with randomness has shown me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a really good paper out there that shows exactly how one type of transmitter changed to a different type (I am sick today and so my brain is really fuzzy). But that would give you more complexity- cause you duplicate the gene and then follow this step by step process and bam- now you can pump two moleculars instead of just one. Also, Resh, you should take a few minutes to go learn how DNA is sequenced. This webpage has a pretty picture: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/genome-projects-uncovering-the-blueprints-of-biology/ This is not necessarily the best explanation, but I like pictures.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that it can't, and I've heard plenty of examples about how it could, but I have yet to be shown anything conclusive that shows that it has.
Well, if you agree that it can produce *some* complexity, then that's a particular bridge we don't have to worry about crossing. Many IDists have a dogmatic belief that randomness is incapable of producing complexity, period. That is demonstrably false for every colloquial and technical definition of complexity that I've ever heard of.
So, you agree that evolutionary theory is plausible, you just think it's highly unlikely and lacking in positive evidence?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
Well if the nature of any complexity that is generated is such that it is preserved, then it would seem there would be no upper bound to the amount of complexity that could arise. That's why selection is such a key element.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: You're right, I misinterpreted what you said. When you first said
quote: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
You denied that ordered things can arise without a purpose, but selection IS a purpose, the purpose is to continue to reproduce.
But, then you clarified with:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Genetic sequences have information, and natural selection + randomness does not produce information.
So I suppose that I'm incorrect in saying that you ignore natural selection completely. What I should have said is that you don't believe that natural selection can produce information, which people have provided you with multiple examples of how it can, and you have ignored.
I apologize for criticizing you on the wrong aspect of your intentional misunderstanding.
Edit: You know, just on this very page you wrote, "And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity"
So I wasn't wrong after all, you continue to ignore the effects of selection. It isn't just randomness!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Again, I don't know that it can't. I find it highly unlikely that it could produce very much, it is fighting an uphill battle against the normal effects of randomness, and whatever complexity arises comes from a certain level of complexity that already existed in the first place.
How do you know that evolution can't make "enough" complexity when you can't quantify "how much" is needed?
If you can't count how much complexity there is in those tiny DNA sequences I gave you, how on earth can you pretend to know how much complexity evolution can manage, and how much more compelxity organisms possess?
Second, there's no uphill battle. Indeed, it's downhill. Mutations that hurt their bearers will be selected against, those few mutations that help their bearers will be over-represented.
Let's say that in every generation, there are 10 lethal mutations, and 10 really helpful mutations.
So what does the 100th generation look like? Those 1 good mutations a generation will still be in the population. So the population will have 100 good mutations it didn't have before. And the bad mutations? Their bearers didn't survive, so the bad mutations don't show up in the later generations.
So 100 generatiosn later, you have 100 good mutations, and the same random 10 bad ones.
Randomness channeled by selection. That's what drives evolution.
Lastly you can't say "I don't know, but I'm sure I'm right".
It's just nonsensical. (But thanks for being so upfront about the fact that your beliefs in this area are indeed nonsensical)
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm starting to disagree with your tone, Mucus (which may be unintentional; I know how nuance gets lost around here). But the problem remains: you are comparing someone using a stopwatch and a ruler to test for gravity with a highly technical concept like genetic sequencing. They are not the same, and I would guess that genetic data is still subject to interpretation. You still seem to be arguing that we religious types should accept your negation of our beliefs (or at least modify our beliefs to accommodate yours) based purely on faith.
Thats just it, the basic principles behind genetic sequencing are not highly technical. Now, the full range of confirming techniques is beyond the scope of most people, but the basic ideas and concepts behind DNA sequencing would have been plastered all over the mass media coverage of the Human Genome Project. Furthermore, you've demonstrated an interest in evolution, but DNA sequencing is literally one of the most fundamental steps in understanding genetics, hence my frustration.
Secondly, there is no interpretation to be done really. As I've said multiple times, all high-throughput DNA and protein sequencing is completely automated. Also, as I painstakingly noted, the existence of multiple confirming techniques based on vastly different principles prevents the possibility of systematic error by one technique for sequencing.
Lastly, we were discussing the accuracy of DNA sequencing and sequence databases. What religion would be negated by the *mere existence* of accurate DNA sequences and databases?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't you use a layman's argument when arguing with a layman?
Well, for one thing, when they use layman's arguments, you say you're unconvinced and want additional proof. You're well aware, Resh, that you're not arguing here in good faith; you aren't actually listening to what people say to you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing resh's present tone with his posts in the past almost makes me think like there is a different, yet equally incurious creationist arguer behind the name.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reshpeckobiggle, it seems to me, from your latest posts here, that you are a bit frustrated because you’re asked the same questions over and over, even if you already answered, and that your own questions are avoided/ignored because “the other side” only hears what they want to hear.
I propose you, therefore, a new list of questions, all oriented toward helping you find for yourself the answer to one of your previous questions here. There was some discussion about frogs with long and short toes, some fruitflies, gulls and stuff.
Oh, here’s your question:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
If you’re not satisfied with MattP’s answer that followed, and you’re still interested in that question, I’d like to propose a way, following small steps, and probably a lot of my questions.
I will concentrate on dogs. They are fairly common today in the world and I think that might help more than thinking about a bunch of extinct dinosaurs
If you are interested, we’ll be going “all over the place”, from the “paradox” of the egg and the chicken, to Noah’s Ark and without avoiding the question :”If man comes from monkey, as evolutionism claims, why don’t we see today such an event?”
I am surely simplifying the concepts and I might not be 100% scientific in my formulation (my own limitation), but I’m open to be corrected along the way by anyone ready to do so.
So, Reshpeckobiggle, do you think this to be a good idea?
posted
Ah, the ape and chromosome thing. Isn't evidence very strong that those two chromosomes apes have fused to create our human chromosome #2? Remains of the original telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2, as well as an identical banding structure to that of the aforementioned ape chromosomes...
I've looked all over, but I haven't found any claims/evidence that a fusion did not occur, so what is the most common argument against these findings? Coincidence? God tricking us :/
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Aww! You mentioned it! I wanted to see what his theory would predict that this absence meant!
Anyway, evolutionary theory predicted, before we looked for it, that the chromosomes would be fused in the manner that they are.
The prediction was right. The question I want to know is, of course, what his intelligent design would have predicted.
He did not respond to my questions about predictions, in the past. He must not remember that, among my other vital questions. Since he seemed to feel that trying to insult me, and belittling me with something completely unrelated was a useful debate tactic.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious: what is the difference between evidence that something did happen and evidence that something could have happened? Is it merely a matter of degree? or is there a qualitative difference between the two? or are they one and the same?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think is something along the lines: If I see an egg crushed on the floor, next to the table, upon which I see several other eggs out of their box (I had taken them out and I had to run to the phone) I have to wonder: Did the egg really fell off the table (because the windows was open and the wind made it move), or did someone put it there really carefully (purposefully), making it appear it had fallen from the exact same height as the table?
Now, if I knew that I’m all alone in the house, then It must have fallen, right? But as I can’t rule out the existence of ghosts that I can’t detect but at the same time they (the ghosts) can push eggs around, well, there is no reason to trust my first conclusion.
posted
Mike, the difference (as far as I can tell) is that evidence that something could have happened is sufficient when it comes to proving the unprovable. Suminon's example does not approach the amount of acceptance of the unprovable that evolution requires.
Megabyte, why don't I answer your questions, even though you are begging me to? Because your begging is embarrassing. No, actually it's because you aren't listening to me. I've already said several times I'm not interested in proving anything. What I believe in is unprovable: that we were created. My argument here is based on a refusal to accept an alternative theory that sets out to disprove what I believe, and uses logic that requires me to disbelieve what I believe in the first place, and also ignore my own personal experiences with both the supernatural and with the effects of randomness in nature.
Speaking of:
quote:Originally posted by Mightycow: What I should have said is that you don't believe that natural selection can produce information, which people have provided you with multiple examples of how it can, and you have ignored.
I apologize for criticizing you on the wrong aspect of your intentional misunderstanding.
Edit: You know, just on this very page you wrote, "And I'm saying that I don't think randomness is sufficient to explain increasing complexity"
So I wasn't wrong after all, you continue to ignore the effects of selection. It isn't just randomness!
If you had followed my line of reasoning, you would have seen that I have no argument with Natural Selection and anything that it might be capable of. It is specifically the randomness aspect of the equation that I have little confidence in. So if you think I misunderstand the mechanism of the theory, you are the one who is intentionally misunderstanding.
Tom, I'm not arguing in good faith? What is it that you're doing then? Jeering from the sidelines, just to let me know that I'm not on the home team?
Matt and swbarnes: the only to who do seem to be trying to engage me in good faith (oh yeah, and suminon. I'll get to you in a minute.) Matt, the only way there could be no upper bound is if there was an infinite amount of time available. Now billions of years seems like a lot, and maybe it would be enough. But I've read some statistical calculations that set a ridiculously high upper bound for time and chemical processes, and still there was little chance that much would be accomplished: not my area of expertise, but it goes to show that that the numbers can be manipulated to fit whatever solution one has in mind. And if you expect me to believe that those numbers are wrong because that mathematician was biased, I don't know why you expect me to believe the calculations in favor of Evolution are immune to bias, given my already expressed doubts about the objectivity of those who believe the theory in the first place.
Which brings me to swbarnes. Conceptually, yes, that makes sense, and you aren't teaching me something new here. But again, there is no evidence that this is what has happened. It is a logical deduction that arises from a need to explain existence from a purely Naturalistic perspective. It's creative, and a lot of effort has gone into proving it to be correct (rather than disproving it, which is what should be the goal of evolutionary science.) Now let's look at it more realistically, as empirical studies have shown. Let's say that for every 1000 mutations, one is not harmful. This mutation must convey some benefit upon the species in a way that causes its increased likelihood of being passed on. Just because the mutation causes the horse to run faster does not make it more likely to reproduce. Maybe it is more likely to break its leg. So there must be some tangible benefit to the mutation. Either that, or there is an accumulation of neutral mutations that are finally activated by one more mutation, like the straw that breaks the camel's back. Whatever the case, this is the purported mechanism for allowing natural selection to do its part. The idea is that this happens often enough that we have a massive increase in complexity over millions of years.
I am being told that there is a mountain of evidence that this has happened. My attention is directed toward the archaeopteryx and the tiktaalik, and the occasional added chromosome to human DNA that actually doesn't cause considerable developmental harm. I am shown variations in Finches beaks and spotted moths. And then I am told that "the ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing." And then when I say I don't find any of that to be very convincing, I am told that I am willfully ignoring the evidence, not arguing in good faith, and that I simply don't understand the theory. Of course I don't! Understanding implies belief!
No. Belief implies understanding. Of course scientist find confirming evidence for it all the time, because disconfirming evidence could not possibly exist, or if it did it can be explained. As a last resort, if the evidence cannot be ignored (i.e; the fact of stasis in the fossil record) the theory is adjusted to accommodate the evidence (i.e; punctuated equilibrium). The Marxists could always point to the the capitalist who actually did exploit the workers, and the Freudians would occasionally examine someone who really did want to sleep with his mother. Similarly, Evolutionists are going to find some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans and the beautiful thing about that kind of evidence is that most people are too intimidated by the jargon to argue.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I've looked all over, but I haven't found any claims/evidence that a fusion did not occur, so what is the most common argument against these findings? Coincidence? God tricking us :/
Before I get to suminon, I just wanted to ask; are you saying that a negative must be proved? In order for this piece of evidence to be rendered invalid, we must prove that the fusing didn't happen?
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Reshpeckobiggle, it seems to me, from your latest posts here, that you are a bit frustrated because you’re asked the same questions over and over, even if you already answered, and that your own questions are avoided/ignored because “the other side” only hears what they want to hear...
If you’re not satisfied with MattP’s answer that followed, and you’re still interested in that question, I’d like to propose a way, following small steps, and probably a lot of my questions.
I will concentrate on dogs. They are fairly common today in the world and I think that might help more than thinking about a bunch of extinct dinosaurs
If you are interested, we’ll be going “all over the place”, from the “paradox” of the egg and the chicken, to Noah’s Ark and without avoiding the question :”If man comes from monkey, as evolutionism claims, why don’t we see today such an event?”
I am surely simplifying the concepts and I might not be 100% scientific in my formulation (my own limitation), but I’m open to be corrected along the way by anyone ready to do so.
So, Reshpeckobiggle, do you think this to be a good idea?
A.
Not so much "frustrated" as "amused." But sure, go for it. Be warned, I have a habit of just disappearing for weeks. You know, if I see that I'm actually going to have to come to terms with my ignorance.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Resh. You don't care about predicting things.
You don't care about whether something's useful or not.
You simply do not care about whether something predicts things more accurately than other. You don't care about knowing things at all!
Your mindset, if applied equally throughout the world, would have made the survival of most of us impossible. It would have made our current form of communication impossible. It would have made many things impossible. Because you don't actually care about results. You care about beliefs.
You act as though changing theories to fit new evidence is somehow some kind of weakness. But that's actually the very essence of science. Science does NOT work the way you feel. Scientists do NOT look for confirming evidence, and ignore disconfirming evidence.
Do you realize just how many of our discoveries came from the answer being opposite of what the people doing the experiments believed it would be? Shall I list a few? How many times entire theories were thrown out the window, because the evidence suggests something else?
You say you don't find mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing convincing. Why not? What do you know about them, how they work? Do you disagree that these mechanisms physically exist? Or do you disagree that the evidence they use shows evolution?
You claim understanding implies belief. Where do you get that? If I understand the mindset of another human being, does that mean I believe it? If I understand an outdated idea that obviously does not work, does that mean I actually believe in it?
So: Where is the disconfirming evidence?
Oh, wait. You don't CARE about evidence! You said so yourself! You'll merely dismiss it. I doubt you'd believe it even if you DID see it with your own eyes.
Okay: You say your arguement is a refusal to accept a theory that disagrees with your preset beliefs. That's what you said. It does not matter to you if it predicts reality accurately, yes? You don't care about evidence, about prediction, about reality.
You are the antithesis of science. You are the antithesis of truth. You are the ultimate subjectivist, holding your subjective understanding of the universe as higher than the reality around you, the physical, objective world.
You make fun of me for demanding you to treat your own theory with the same rigor that the scientists you disdain use. You in fact mock that rigor. You claim you're not interested in proving anything. How do you know, if you can't prove it?
How do you know? Based on what evidence do you believe?
Belief without evidence is the actions of a fool. Anyone can believe that, say, they can jump off a building. Why is your belief any better, any less foolish, then that? The difference is evidence, is it not?
If not, then wha tis the difference between one who believes, without proof, that they can fly, and you, who believe without proof that the world and man was magically created, as is, with genes full of crap, broken things that other species have and all sorts of other oddities, and the universe itself all acting as though it's old, without evidence?
What is the difference?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, I'm not arguing in good faith? What is it that you're doing then? Jeering from the sidelines, just to let me know that I'm not on the home team?
Leaving aside the bit about the home team, yes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the difference between you and one who believes the Earth is flat? I've seen them argue, and they dismiss any evidence that the Earth is round, and say very similar things as you. How are yuo different? How?
How do you discern whether your belief is more valid than the belief that the Earth is sitting on top of a giant turtle? How do you tell? How?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ... And then I am told that "the ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing." And then when I say I don't find any of that to be very convincing, I am told that I am willfully ignoring the evidence, not arguing in good faith, and that I simply don't understand the theory. Of course I don't! Understanding implies belief!
... Similarly, Evolutionists are going to find some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans and the beautiful thing about that kind of evidence is that most people are too intimidated by the jargon to argue.
First, "Evolutionists" did not invent the procedures for DNA and protein sequencing. In the cases that I can think of, either biochemists or molecular geneticists where involved.
For example, Edman degradation for protein sequencing, named after the biochemist that discovered the process. DNA sequencing starts with Sanger, an English biochemist with two Nobel prizes in Chemistry, not biology. Mass spectrometry obviously has a background in analysis of simple ions, gases, small molecules, and the like before moving onto the more complex organic molecules such as peptides and proteins. Craig Ventor and shotgun sequencing: biochemist by trade.
Now, you may ask the question, why were "Evolutionists" or as scientists would prefer the term, "evolutionary biologists" not more involved?
Well, for the simple reason that they tend to have degrees in higher level subjects rather than fiddling with individual atoms and ions, Dawkin's background is in zoology, Stephen Jay Gould's is in paleontology.
Secondly, there is a lot of money in sequencing genes and proteins. While some people are debating about evolution and the like, that is not where the money is, many people have real problems in biotechnology, pharmaceutical development. Sanger sequenced insulin to figure out how it works, to aid further drug development. This is where the money is mostly headed.
So get it straight, DNA sequencing, protein sequencing, these are the tools, invented mostly by biochemists to produce *data*, for many different reasons.
This data is then interpreted later by people interested in evolution, like evolutionary biologists or "evolutionists" if you prefer, who create the *theory* to explain the data.
While data may be used to support evolutionary theory, the data is usually created for very different purposes, do not conflate the two. The US government did not spend ludicrous amounts of money to create the Human Genome Project just to prove evolution. Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it would help the conversation, I could give a basic explanation of sequencing and related techniques, since that's sort of what I do at work. I can also point to some resources for those who want to look at sequences themselves. The NCBI, for one. I love that site.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: I never said that a fusion did in fact occur and that a negative is needed to prove it wrong. I merely reported evidence supporting the case that that is what indeed happened to human genetic structure. I've seen the pro-evolution take on these findings; I'd like to know if ID or anti-evolutionists have a different interpretation.
I'd like to believe that in a truly debatable subject, no one side has the burden of proof. Both sides should have interpretations/evidence and be allowed the same respect when presenting their case. However, the act of not having an answer or interpretation to certain findings is in itself helpful evidence to the opposition. Unless of course one side believes the subject isn't debatable because they "know the truth" and don't have to prove anything. In that case, there's no point in trying to have a meaningful discussion.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I left you out of the list of people who are attempting to engage me honestly, Mucus. Thanks for being honest, Tom. I should just make a list of people whose posts I gloss over without bothering to think about a response (Sam, Megabyte, KoM). Tom's are short and entertaining enough I actually read them, and I believe that when he actually takes time to make a point they are usually worth reading.
Anyway Mucus, when I say evolutionists, I don't just mean biologists or paleontologists. Anyone who believes Evolution is a sufficient explanation for life on earth is an evolutionist.
But in this case, I actually was referring to the Dawkins and Goulds of the world when I said that about evolutionists finding some gene sequencing thing between monkeys and humans or a perfect transitional between fish and amphibians. It doesn't matter who does the research. A Biblical literalist could have made the discovery. My point is that if you look hard enough and long enough, you can find proof of anything.
Finally, even if you had a winning point there, does that make Evolution true?
Shigosei, that would be great. I'm not sure how much it would contribute, especially if you make it simple enough that I can understand it. But you never know til you try!
Saephon, you have a point about not having an answer. The thing is, my answer is inadmissible to a scientific debate as the rules of scientific debate are defined. Namely: I think there is a supernatural explanation, or at least I believe the possibility exists and have no problem with the idea that a scientific explanation may not be adequate.
This is where I have gone wrong before. I tried engaging some of the more, shall we say, scientific-minded persons here on their terms. But that game is rigged. What good is the negation of a theory without something to replace it with? Oh sure, Creationism could conceivably replace it, but not if the scientists have anything to do with it. Hard to blame them, especially considering that methodological atheism is probably the surest ticket to natural knowledge. But it is the philosophical atheism that confuses the methodology with reality that irks me, and has, in my view, hijacked science.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Oh sure, Creationism could conceivably replace it, but not if the scientists have anything to do with it. Hard to blame them, especially considering that methodological atheism is probably the surest ticket to natural knowledge. But it is the philosophical atheism that confuses the methodology with reality that irks me, and has, in my view, hijacked science.
See, first of all, scientists balk against the idea of a supernatural explanation because there's no evidence, not even a 'this is how it could have happened' that holds water against the evidence. While science has at its advantage actual evidence for its theories.
Also, if you want to talk hijacking of science, you can look no further than creationists attempts to introduce religion back into classrooms in the guise of psuedoscience.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could I refer you to the thread entitled "Tu Quoque" that I started awhile ago?
Of course they balk at it. Refusing to invoke supernatural causes is the methodological atheism that I was referring to, and something I do not have a problem with, and would even encourage. But dismissing outright the possibility of the supernatural is not something that can be defended on scientific grounds. Yes, true science has evidence backing it up. This is the point of the whole thread, and every other I've participated in on this subject: Evolution does not qualify as science. It is pseudo-science, a logical deduction of Naturalistic philosophy.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I really want to wade into this debate as it's been covered here many times before...yet, here I am writing a post.
First let me point out that Religion has always been the strongest adversary of science. They simply can not stand anything that contradicts there absolute authority over knowledge.
When Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, religion said he was a liar and a fraud, that the man was the center of the universe and anyone who contradicted the Church on the matter was in league with the devil.
Of course, despite their absolute belief in the rightness of their position, hundreds of years of science have proven them wrong.
When Marco Polo returned from China and spoke of Fireworks, the Church swore that he was a liar, and that it was impossible for colored lights to shoot across the sky, and that if it did happen it was the work of the devil.
The man who invented the microscope, which is a pretty simple device, took a drop of pond water, and said, look there are tiny little creatures in the water. Of course the church representatives refused to look and swore that these creatures didn't exist and that if they did exist they were the work of the devil.
Again, hundreds of years of scientific proof have proven them absolutely wrong on these and countless other scientific points.
Now along comes evolution, and religion swears that it is absolutely wrong, and if it is right, it is the work of the devil. (OK, somewhat metaphorical)
But notice a pattern; notice the element of doubt in every case. First the church swears that this new information is absolutely positively utterly and completely wrong, but then they add, but if it is right, it's the work of the devil. Whether it is the work of the devil is irrelevant, but the fact that they concede it might be true and attribute it to the devil, tells me clearly that they never have and never will know what the hades they are talking about.
What the church want is to control the world and all thought and knowledge in it. When something challenges the petty small minded notion of what is true and right, first the disclaim it, then they attribute it to the devil. All meant to control free thought.
Now let's get scientific. Electricity is a theory. Chemistry is a theory. Physics is a theory. We don't know how any of these things work, but we have developed a reasonable working model that allows us to use them. When you turn on the light switch, the lights usually come on, and I assure you it is not the work of the devil.
The atomic theory that explains electricity fails to explain chemistry, and the model that explains chemistry fails to explain electricity. Yet, in our world we are surrounded by applied chemistry and applied electricity.
The same is true of Evolution. No it is not a complete science, no it doesn't explain everything we would like to know, but like electricity and chemistry, we have a sufficient working model that we can clearly demonstrate that it is real and how it works.
You complain that 'Naturalistic philosophy' (whatever that is) is pseudo-science, but NATURE is the Hand of God on earth. And just because the Hand of God on earth doesn't fit your petty small minded world view (a general statement, nothing personal), you denounce it. That seems extremely unChristian to me.
Because science deals with an understanding of nature, and nature is God's Hand on Earth, science simply documents God to the best of its ability with the understanding it has at the moment. And across the endless span of history, science has done consistently better job of documenting God that they Church has ever done.
It is the Christians who deny God's Hand on Earth and cling to out-dated out-moded fantasy beliefs that are the real detractors from truth.
Christian Creationists cling to flawed failed fantasy, Scientific Creationist cling to the truth on earth as it is revealed to them through the Nature of God's Hand; though the workings God set into motion by the Natural processes that can only come from him. Christian Creationist also cling to the power and control of all thought and belief on earth, failed and flawed as it might be, and that is really sad.
In my opinion, the alleged Christians who challenge scientific documentation of the wonder of the Natrual Processes God set to work on earth, only prove how small minded and Godless they really are.
You heard it here first. (with apologies for the frank harshness of my statements, though I do not and will not retract them)
posted
Excepting of course that many Christians accept and embrace the idea of Evolution as God's mechanism and hold the belief that science and religion can quite happily co-exist.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If you had followed my line of reasoning, you would have seen that I have no argument with Natural Selection and anything that it might be capable of. It is specifically the randomness aspect of the equation that I have little confidence in. So if you think I misunderstand the mechanism of the theory, you are the one who is intentionally misunderstanding.
What aspect of the randomness don't you have confidence in? Do you not believe that randomness occurs, or that randomness cannot produce sufficient change, or that selection cannot eliminate the negative aspects of randomness and keep the positive elements?
One thing I'll give you, is that I imagine you win a lot of arguments by making the other person not want to bother any more. I guess that's something.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Your opinions are your own. But do they prove Evolution?
“Opinions can’t prove anything” is virtually equivalent with “science” On the other hand, knowing that opinions can’t prove Evolution, what is it that CAN?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Refusing to invoke supernatural causes is the methodological atheism that I was referring to, and something I do not have a problem with, and would even encourage. But dismissing outright the possibility of the supernatural is not something that can be defended on scientific grounds. Yes, true science has evidence backing it up. This is the point of the whole thread, and every other I've participated in on this subject: Evolution does not qualify as science. It is pseudo-science, a logical deduction of Naturalistic philosophy.
- - - emphasis added - - - Now, this is a CLAIM that you should defend better than just by saying “it is not science because I don’t believe in it (being a skeptic)”. Also, I suppose that when you say “Evolution” (a fact that may have happened or not) you mean “Evolutionism” (the scientific theory that studies how would Evolution work). No scientist will try to PROVE that Evolution happened as Evolutionism describes it, as it is always possible (while very undlikely) that an undetectable ghost “put it all there” to look as if it did, and we can’t know that for sure.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not so much "frustrated" as "amused." But sure, go for it. Be warned, I have a habit of just disappearing for weeks. You know, if I see that I'm actually going to have to come to terms with my ignorance.
Ok, I agree to your terms too.
Now, the first point would be: What is a “dog” (as opposed to say… a “wolf”)? We have to outline exactly when an animal is a dog and not a wolf or cow or monkey, to be able to agree on the criteria for deciding when “a dog becomes a non-dog”
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mike, the difference (as far as I can tell) is that evidence that something could have happened is sufficient when it comes to proving the unprovable. Suminon's example does not approach the amount of acceptance of the unprovable that evolution requires.
I’m willing to take the egg parallel a lot further (It’s not just a random example!), but first I’d like to know what you mean by “the unprovable that evolution requires”.
posted
So, Resh. No answer. Still no answer. You don't even care about giving an answer, and said that yourself.
You've never answered my questions.
Get out of my thread. This is my discussion, about my problems, not yours. Leave. I'd like to ocntinue discussing things without you bringing your stench.
This is my thread, and if you don't care to talk to me, stop posting. Just get out. Get the hell out!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte, getting all upset and frustrated doesn’t help anyone.
I really see here (at least declaratively) the intent and willingness to learn. There is another reason of why I think that talking seriously with Reshpeckobiggle is not all bad, in a previous post.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Your opinions are your own. But do they prove Evolution?
Did anyone ever claim that just opinions prove evolution?
No. You are the only person who is claiming that an opinion alone proves a side of the argument, here.
The opposition to you is repetitively submitting heaps of evidence which do much to establish evolution's overwhelming credibility, and your tactic so far has been to just say "What evidence? It can't be evidence; I cannot see it or otherwise do not recognize it."
You counter it by stating to effect "Oh, there's something that disproves that" but when pressed to qualify that statement, you back up to a tired line where you retreat to a claim that you don't need to prove anything and are not trying to.
Despite the fact that this is a lie -- and numerous other unfathomable anti-logical stances -- you then pepper your assault on others with hazy accusations of named logical fallacy.
What you've accomplished so far is to drive everyone nuts! I'm surprised it took this long. Maybe you're trying to earn some vitriol and pretend that your position is granted some kind of reprieve or credibility if it drives people totally bonkers. I've seen it before. You just say "Ah, look at how frustrated the Darwinists/Evolutionists (sp) get when they try to handle my amazingly self-assured statements!" We're talking some pretty hardcore ferrous cranus here.
Or maybe you're trying a new tact to save face for your last thread where lost your cool devil-may-care exterior under pressure from people who knew what they were talking about, and called everybody pathetic nobodies.
But what's best is that we've slipped a little bit lower, here -- before, you claimed to be able to prove your position. You would actively quote things and make logical statements like "Evolution cannot be true because <scientific argument here>" and brought up several gems like irreducible complexity and half-an-eyes and fossil transition and stuff about there being no proven speciation and nonce about theories. You would be countered on these one-liners and then subsequently say something like "You just aren't looking at the real information. I can easily back all of this up! Easily" then promptly vanish, then promise to go back and tie up all the loose ends, then vanish again.
Here, you're doing something different. You're providing us with the cleanest example of negative argumentation. The side you claim you don't have to prove is "We were designed." Then you make attacks from this position by asserting the impossibility of other people's weighted claims. Nevermind trying to wrest definitions of design from you, as you've labeled this a 'trap.' Not very clever, but there you go.
Then, from this position, you make quick jabs at the disproof of evolution and think you can safely run back to the same position. Transitional fossils suddenly aren't transitional fossils because you don't believe them to be. Why don't you believe them to be? Oh, right, for reasons you say you don't have to prove. Sequence complexity and chemical structures can only work the way you think they work, in a manner which makes increasing species complexity impossible. Why is this? Oh, right, for reasons you say you don't have to prove. Evolution is impossible. No, I don't have to prove that. That's excellent information against my viewpoint, but it's irrelevant. No, I don't have to prove that, remember?
You're wrong. I don't have to prove that. Oh, by the way, here's why you're wrong. I don't have to prove that either. I'm amazed you think that this counts as proof. Why? Who cares, I'm not trying to prove anything. La la la, I can't hear you, I was never trying to prove anything, la la la.
posted
Resh, when you talk about the 'impossibility' of things (organisms, specifically) to become more 'complex', I believe that you're referring to the concept of Entropy. Which, in a very cut down definition, means that things will tend to go from a state of order to disorder. In general, I might agree with you on this point, except for the key phrase 'tend to'. At this point, the entire argument becomes a battle of probabilities with no 'proof' to be had for either side.
You mentioned the 'upper bounds' of probability projected concerning the likelihood of human evolution. I counter with this: The probability that humans even EXIST is so astronomically, ludicrously improbable that the only way we can convince OURSELVES that we exist is to see it with our own eyes. It is only the concept of infinity (or at least a huge amount of time, that tops even these insane probabilities, that this universe has been in existance) that allows me to believe in these things. Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare. On a long enough time line, ALL things with any probability will happen (and maybe HAS happened, if you believe in some of the more far-fetched quantum theories).
Of course, if you happen to not believe in these huge improbabilities, then this entire discussion is a moot point, because the people you are arguing with ASSUME these things to be true, and assume that you do too. It's like arguing Art with someone who sees an entire different spectrum. Your foundations have to be similar.
Do you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you believe that Universe itself is 13.7 billion years old? Do you believe in the Big Bang? If you said no to any of these, then we're wasting our time. If you said yes to any of these, then your argument is flawed. The reason for this: I think any religious person has 3 options as far as these questions are concerned.
1: God started everything off at the Big Bang and has been letting things run ever since, possibly even planning everything that exists/happens.
2: God created everything for, and including, humanity at the same time just the way he/she/it wanted it (God can't make mistakes, after all, so it must have been right the first time).
3: God is playing with the Earth like a bored teenager with a Myspace account, meaning he just changes anything, anytime. He makes species willy-nilly whenever he feels like it and everything improbable is because of him.
If 1, then Evolution is the most likely explanation, as it is the only way we could have come from Nothing to what we are, assuming God is leaving us to our own devices. This is the only version of God that I MIGHT be able to bring myself to believe, until I die at least, at which point I assume I'll find out for sure and not have to guess any more.
If 2, then why are you even here? If you believe in this, then you don't WANT proof. That your even interested in the subject (or feigning interest) is kinda weird considering that you MUST know how people will react.
If 3, then once again, we have nothing to discuss. If your explanation for everything is "God did it.", then you frighten and bewilder me.
Or maybe you think that God set off the Universe and took a nap, setting his alarm to 9.2 Billion years so he could wake up in time to start the Humans up.
Explanation 1 is the only one that I conceive of that doesn't throw your entire religion into question; that being the belief in an omnipotent God. If their is a God as you believe in him, then their is no reason that he didn't do everything right the first time, and hence, no need to meddle. Some would argue that situation 3 could be brought off by the same god, but I say why would he go through all of the trouble to make this world and the universe in place with all the proof needed to point to the Big Bang and later Evolution when he has it within his power to actually DO the Big Bang/Evolution? Why fake something so perfectly when you make it genuinely just as easily? What, was he in a HURRY? Not to mention, if we COULDN'T prove Evolution, or some non-divine origin of Humanity, wouldn't that then break the rule that their can be no hard PROOF of god?
Is this the point where you change your beliefs to fit the logic the way you claim scientists change their theories to fit the evidence?
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Conceptually, yes, that makes sense, and you aren't teaching me something new here.
Yes, we all know that you prize the “innovative” and “elaborate” over the factual. Sorry, no one here shares your opinion there, so expect to be constantly disappointed in that regard. You will continue to get facts and sound arguments from the likes of us, and not crowd-pleasing extravaganzas of bombast.
quote: But again, there is no evidence that this is what has happened.
But there is. People do experiments on bacteria, and generate mutants which survive better in their environments than their predecessors do. Random mutations, couples with the selection imposed by the environment (such as the presence of an antibiotic). And they DON’T necessarily lose genetic information, however you want to measure it, doing so.
quote: It is a logical deduction that arises from a need to explain existence from a purely Naturalistic perspective.
So essentially, you are arguing that science should spend more time studying angels that it currently does.
That’s just wonderful. Funny how no Christian universities with working biology research programs seem to agree with you. Why do you think that is?
quote:Let's say that for every 1000 mutations, one is not harmful. This mutation must convey some benefit upon the species in a way that causes its increased likelihood of being passed on.
Let’s say that it rains spaghetti every Tuesday. It would be as accurate as your assertion. But reasoning off of obviously false assertions won’t demonstrate a thing.
Most mutations are neutral. That’s empirical fact.
However, of non-neutral mutations, the bad ones outnumber the good.
quote: Just because the mutation causes the horse to run faster does not make it more likely to reproduce. Maybe it is more likely to break its leg.
If a mutation causes its bearer to break its leg more often, then by definition, that’s not a beneficial mutation. It’s a bad one.
Beneficial does mean “whatever mutation causes a phenotype that looks at a cursory glance to be nifty”. It means “a mutation that makes its bearer more likely to reproduce more than others in its population”. If you are going to make up definitions to words, no one will understand you. (See multiple people have told you to be rigorous in your definitions? Doesn’t this suggest that this is a rhetorical problem for you? Do you even care?)
quote: Either that, or there is an accumulation of neutral mutations that are finally activated by one more mutation, like the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Care to explain the mechanism by which this takes place?
Oh yeah, you can’t. You just made it up. It’s bad enough that you are convinced by your own imaginary arguments, but don’t you see that it makes you look like a lunatic when you expect others to be convinced by them?
And when people who actually know a thing or two tell you that this isn’t a likely scenario at all, you will ignore them. And you will make the same claim on some other board in 6 months. Your invincible ignorance strikes again!
quote: Whatever the case, this is the purported mechanism for allowing natural selection to do its part.
No its not, it’s a scenario that you made up. It’s not what evolutionary theory predicts, and it doesn’t match with what the data shows. But since you won’t look at the data, and you won’t listen when someone tries to teach you better, you will continue to argue like a lunatic.
quote: The idea is that this happens often enough that we have a massive increase in complexity over millions of years.
Again with the “massive” complexity. Do you really not understand that everyone on this board knows that you are totally unable to count complexity, even in something as simple as a tiny DNA sequence, so when you claim that you can count it in whole organisms, it makes you look insane?
You want to be privately crazy, fine. But do you not see that not a soul on this board finds your craziness to be worth considering?
I guess the question is “Do you think that your positions are reasonably supported by logic and evidence” and “Do you think that you have presented a case that is supported by evidence and reason?”
Because I bet you think that the answer to both is “yes”, but not a soul on the board agrees with you, and I think you should consider that a bit before worrying about the specifics of a subject that you admit you are wildly ignorant in. You don’t want to define your terms. You make up evidence, and expect everyone to think its real, even if their real-life experience tells them its not. If you are going to stick with tactics like these, you should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a bit of advice for you, Resh. I gave this advice to Irami, and I'm giving it to you. There's only one consistent way to win an argument here against the majority. It involves two parts:
1. Do more research than anybody else here on the subject, by a lot...to the degree that no Hatracker can argue intelligently on your level on the subject. You haven't reached that point on the subject of evolution, just in case you were wondering.
2. Keep the subject area very, very narrow. This is a necessary corollary to #1, given the high intelligence and education level of many Hatrackers. You're not doing this successfully, either.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that note, I'm interested in one of Resh's repeated statements - I'm curious to know what, exactly, are his encounters and experiences with 'randomness' that so strongly influences his beliefs.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this is getting good. I'm sorry if you feel like your thread has been hijacked, Megabyte. Let us know if you plan to delete it so we can continue it elsewhere.
Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy. But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me. You're right about me losing my cool last time. All I can say is that I promise not to post after several hours of drinking and losing at poker. As poor as it is, at least I have an excuse. What's yours?
On to the serious stuff. Suminon, I know a statement like "Evolution is pseudo-science" needs to be backed up, and saying "This is just what I believe" is not enough. I've been explaining why I think this way for the last five pages, and in numerous other threads (and I think I'm becoming progressively more effective, judging by the way Sam considers every new thread to be a "new low.") It's pseudo-science because it is not a fact, but taken to be the most basic fact of existence. No "real" scientist doubts it, and does not seek do disprove it. Anything that is considered evidence must be confirming evidence, because how could something that is true discomfirm the truth? The evidence must be wrong. Karl Popper said that a scientific prediction that had a high probability of being wrong would be impressive evidence for a theory if the prediction came true. Can someone give me a prediction about Evolution that has a high probability of being wrong? The location of a transitional between fish and amphibians right where one would be expected to be found, like the tiktaalik? If nothing was found there, would that have cause any doubts about the theory? How many similar predictions have been made and nothing comes up? Who knows, because no one is going to report it. The theory is true, and nothing disproves it. Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now. Dogs! Come one suminon, I'll play along. When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum. Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes. Fortunately for the truth-seekers out there, the enormous variety of species out there allow for some creative storytelling, and all those minute transitions are just as real in your imagination as you think the resurrection of Christ is in mine.
As Sylvrdragon says, it's pseudo-science "because the people [I am] arguing with ASSUME these things to be true, and assume that [I} do too." It's pseudo-science because I am given three options, and all of them require me to give an explanation of what did happen. This is literally the most common defense of Evolution:"You don't think this is what happened? Then give me a better alternative, and it had better be one that doesn't "frighten and bewilder me," or you will be dismissed outright. Of course none of those three options come close to looking like what I actually believe, but that's all I'm given.
It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal. I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief. The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me. But why are you being met with so much resistance? I say it's because I'm skeptical, but that can't be true, because only someone who does not believe in God could be skeptical. Obviously I'm just brainwashed, blindly holding on to my faith and refusing to look at reality.
It's so ironic, that you think that only a universe without purpose or reason can allow you reasonable, and that those of us who believe that the universe was created with purpose and reason are the ones incapable of reason.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, your disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal, because you insist that the evolution for evidence doesn't exist, when you've been presented with vast mountains of it - you just refuse to look at it.
And ID is garners the same derision due to its insistence in being treated as an equal scientific possibility, when the creationist crowd can't come up with anything even remotely plausible in the way of evidence.
If ID's were happy to leave creationism where it belongs, that is, purely as a religious concept, then there would be no issue, as that's where it belongs.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, one thing that causes me to not see where you're coming from is the fact that humans have been steadily defecting from strict Young-Earth Creationism for at least the last 250 years. 200 years ago, almost everybody in the US believed in Creationism, and probably Young-Earth Creationism. As scientific knowledge has progressed, a smaller and smaller percentage of the population believes in YEC. I don't think our civilization has everything right. I think there are things we overreact to, and I think most of us are fools for eating the way most of us do. That doesn't mean that the civilization that made it to the Moon first isn't the best on the planet when it comes to scientific knowledge.
This isn't an issue of everybody who's not on your side is an atheist. We have lots of devout people here, like Dana, who is a minister, or plenty of the LDS folken, who are anything but Young-Earth Creationists. Many/most of them are as smart as you, as well-educated, or more so, and...like I said, I don't know where you're coming from.
Again, I don't love everything about this society, just like I don't love everything about OSC. However, OSC knows how to write a gripping story, and this society, relative to the rest on the planet, knows its science. Criticizing the Western scientific establishment's consensus on Evolution is like saying the French know nothing about wine, or the Chinese know nothing about tea. It's hard not to laugh at that a little.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
