Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 443 (648015)
01-12-2012 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by herebedragons
01-12-2012 3:19 PM


I am also uncertain as to why these creatures would be adapting more and more to life in the water when India was crashing into the continent, closing the Tethys and pushing up the himalayas. Any insights here?
They should have got out of the water and learned to climb mountains instead?
Bear in mind that each proto-whale would have had a limited range. There was probably none whose lifestyle required a circumnavigation of India. The closing of the Tethys might have restricted the total range of the group, but that's no reason why animals which already lived in the sea should have got less well-adapted to doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by herebedragons, posted 01-12-2012 3:19 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2012 10:08 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 443 (648043)
01-12-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheArtist
01-12-2012 4:30 PM


Please explain how this is relevant to my point. Human KIND is alive today, or not extinct, sure people die, that doesn’t mean that the human species is extinct.
No, but our ancestors sure are. What difference does it make if adaptive radiation took place at the same time?
Please explain how this argument answers: It does not matter how you look at this, 49 920 transition steps being absent today seems a bit suspect.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion. Two assertions, in fact, since you're using a figure that someone just pulled out of his ass.
Now, how about you produce an actual argument that it's "a bit suspect"? Explain to me why whales with hind legs should still be alive if they were transitional species. In framing this argument, bear in mind that transitional or not, all the whales with hind legs are in fact dead.
I really don't see what you're thinking here. You're talking as though the mere fact of being transitional should have offered them some protection from extinction, like the Mark of Cain, over and above considerations of their phenotype. But how can this be? A whale that couldn't cut it couldn't cut it, no matter how it was produced. We know that whales with hind legs couldn't cut it. Ergo, they couldn't have cut it if they were transitional species.
If you have any argument to the contrary, I should like to hear it. If all you have is assertion, then you should note that I have an actual argument based on observable facts, which is better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheArtist, posted 01-12-2012 4:30 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 443 (648052)
01-12-2012 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheArtist
01-12-2012 3:56 PM


If you looked back at my previous arguments, my main point was that one still sees a big enough gap between these species to easily assume that they were different animals not one that evolved out of the other.
And if I don't post here for a few hours, you can assume that I spent the intervening time in Heaven having tea and crumpets with the Archangel Gabriel. But it wouldn't be a very sensible assumption.
You don’t see a smooth enough transition in the fossils ...
Show your working.
Really, given the small number of actual fossils we have, we wouldn't expect to see a "smooth" transition between forms. If we had millions of fossil proto-whales, and they could all be put in a few discrete groups, you'd have a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheArtist, posted 01-12-2012 3:56 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 443 (649003)
01-19-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by TheArtist
01-19-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Creationist Scholarship At Its Finest
Since this was the cause to some heated discussion I had taken the time to investigate this particular case. Unfortunately I could not find the true origin of this quote/reference but as I stated before this was most likely that the reference provided did not match the quote.
In any case, here is some reading material that seems to make the same statement:
They really don't make the same mistake, something that I attribute to them being actually written by real scientists.
The papers sort out minor discrepancies. However, equids remain a clade, as does Gilopsis. They're sorting out the fine details. Such papers can give cold comfort to anyone who wants to claim that things that anatomically are whales wouldn't be so genetically.
If these two weren't particularly genetically similar, then something fairly strange would be going on ...
... especially as we can find greater morphological divergence within modern forms which are by every molecular test whales.
In the absence of DNA from Dorudon, which way would you bet?
But in any case, in the absence of DNA we do what we can without it. The theory of evolution tells us that we should be able to find intermediate forms if we look long and thoroughly enough. We looked long and thoroughly enough, and we found intermediate forms. The theory does not tell us that we should be able to apply the techniques of molecular phylogeny to fossils millions of years old, and sure enough, we can't. We see what biologists say we should be able to see. The fact that you can fantasize that the evidence we don't have and can't have might contradict the evidence we do have is neither here nor there.
One would not recommend such a tactic to a defense attorney: "OK, the blood-stains, the fingerprints, the gunpowder residue all point towards my client's guilt ... but if the concrete floor of the crime scene had been soft mud instead so that footprints could have been left in it, those footprints that aren't there in the concrete that couldn't receive their impressions might have told quite a different story." Well, this is neither here nor there.
Going by the evidence we have, we have less-derived whales in the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by TheArtist, posted 01-19-2012 5:22 PM TheArtist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 443 (777806)
02-08-2016 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid
02-08-2016 5:44 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Yeah, the bones just look like a pelvis. Do you have an explanation for why they exist other than that God wanted to trick scientists into believing in evolution? Do tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-08-2016 5:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-08-2016 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 443 (777812)
02-09-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by AlphaOmegakid
02-08-2016 10:22 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
But seriously, did you read the paper? The bones don't look like a pelvis at all.
And yet somehow scientists have managed to identify them as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-08-2016 10:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 85 of 443 (777820)
02-09-2016 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid
02-09-2016 9:24 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Yes, no need for a pelvis in a whale. No legs, no hip joint, and no attachment to the vertebral column. But a vital need to have sexually related muscles and tendons attached to an anchoring bone.
Well, occasional legs.
However after your "years of experience" you somehow conclude that the ischium is about "2/3 of the pelvis". Any Anatomy 101 student would know better.
Anatomy 101 students are literate and would be able to read Coyote's post:
Coyote writes:
But you'll allow the pubic bones, right?
Then what do the paired ischiocavernosus muscles attach to? Maybe the ischium?
That's 2/3 of the pelvis right there!
See what he's saying?
Well, my argument came from the perspective of a hot air balloon.
Your argument does seem to be supported exclusively by hot air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-09-2016 9:24 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-09-2016 11:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 443 (777832)
02-09-2016 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AlphaOmegakid
02-09-2016 11:32 AM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Clearly I do see what he is saying, but I'm afraid you don't.
And yet he agrees with me and not with you; and I noticed that he was including the pubic bones and you didn't.
Yes, and my balloon continues to rise as you an Coyote are drowning in wet ashes.
Why yes, creationism has gone from strength to strength. Only a couple of centuries ago it was merely the dominant idea in biology, but from these humble beginnings it has risen to become the sectarian dogma of a crackpot religious cult whose proudest legitimate boast is that most of them aren't actually flat-Earthers.
Please cite some sources here.
Besides the legged whales in the fossil record, there are numerous recorded cases of avatism. For example:
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint is firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures.
Is this just God fucking with scientists again, or might there be a more rational explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-09-2016 11:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 443 (778648)
02-22-2016 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid
02-10-2016 5:46 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
What fatuous drivel you talk, to be sure.
---
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."
--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
"The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept."
--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-10-2016 5:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-29-2016 2:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 443 (779106)
02-29-2016 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by AlphaOmegakid
02-29-2016 2:20 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
Well I'll take my "fatuous drivel" over your fallacious, and enormous cut and pastes, any day.
If you prefer fatuous drivel to evidence, that is of course entirely up to you.
Are you by any chance a creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-29-2016 2:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 03-01-2016 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 443 (779221)
03-01-2016 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by AlphaOmegakid
03-01-2016 12:20 PM


Re: It's not a pelvis!
No, not even a chance
You''re not a creationist? You do seem awfully keen on creationist-style bullshit. How would you describe yourself?
But in the evo world, that means it's possible!
Perhaps you should concentrate on lying about whales rather than just lying about stuff at random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 03-01-2016 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 133 of 443 (781979)
04-12-2016 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AlphaOmegakid
04-12-2016 6:16 PM


Re: Atavisms in Cetacea Don't Exist!
Ok, so let me make my claim clear....
There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea.
Ah, denial. It's not really a good substitute for being right, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-12-2016 6:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 443 (782030)
04-13-2016 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Blue Jay
04-13-2016 5:22 PM


Re: Atavisms in Cetacea Don't Exist!
Hey, stop confusing the issue with facts!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 04-13-2016 5:22 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 143 of 443 (782031)
04-13-2016 9:57 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Blue Jay, posted 04-14-2016 10:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 443 (782046)
04-14-2016 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by AlphaOmegakid
04-14-2016 1:07 PM


Re: Quite funny strawman
You are quite funny with your parody. The only problm is it doesn't represent anything I've done.
Quite so. You would never mention polymelia, or deny the probatory nature of evidence. Or make any other incompetent efforts to evade reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-14-2016 1:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024