November, 2009, Posts of the Month

Message 1 of 22 (533612) 11-01-2009 5:14 PM

You message subtitle should include the author's name and the topic/thread title.

Message Format:

Nominations should include a link to the nominated article, and a short comment on why the message deserves nomination.

Note: As always, this is not a thread for debates. Posts should be limited to nomination, seconds, and acceptance statements by nominees.

Message 2 of 22 (534114) 11-05-2009 3:03 AM

Moose

Message 4 of 22 (534191) 11-05-2009 4:02 PM

Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus 11-05-2009 3:03 AM

But I insist on sharing the nomination with caffeine who made essentially the same point I did. Not sure how I missed it, really. Must not have read all the way down to the bottom of the thread.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Message 6 of 22 (534344) 11-07-2009 12:43 AM

I don't know what a nomination means from me, but I felt compelled to nominate this post.

Thank you, Rahvin, and countless others on this forum that provide such an outlet for thought-provoking discussion.

And of course, thank you, Percy. Your service to us is simply immeasurable.

A portion of Rahvin's post is below:

Message 7 of 22 (534345) 11-07-2009 1:17 AM

For those who work with biology, the information and careful explanation that Percy provides must be really simple, basic, humdrum stuff. Maybe I "sort of" understood some of Kimura's conclusions before reading what Percy said (I never took a biology class at any level -- I just know what I've read in magazines and web forums), but I learned a lot from that one post, I think I understand things a lot better now, and it makes me want to learn more.

(I'd like to think that Kaichos Man would learn something as well -- it's hard to imagine that anyone who misunderstands biology could read that post and not learn something -- but that remains to be seen.)

Message 8 of 22 (535200) 11-13-2009 5:29 PM

In this message Parasomnium doesn't make our (read my) usual mistake of typing before thinking.

The actual nature of what is being discussed is expressed clearly to all. (well, we'll see about "all" - perhaps it is another test).

Message 10 of 22 (535413) 11-15-2009 7:20 PM

Definitely a five-er! In an intelligent fair and balanced manner, RAZD logically places the various perspectives on an equal playing field.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy Up Message

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Message 11 of 22 (535423) 11-15-2009 9:07 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw 11-15-2009 7:20 PM

Note to self - keep it brief ...

Enjoy.

Message 12 of 22 (535613) 11-17-2009 1:10 AM

Thanks, FaithfulHeart.

Message 13 of 22 (536119) 11-19-2009 10:28 PM

Message 78, Message 104, Message 370, Message 377, Message 378

Note that this represents 5 out of a total of 8 posts on that thread, with the thread total at 381 ... all quality, all succinct and to the point.

Enjoy.

Message 14 of 22 (536120) 11-19-2009 10:35 PM

Another dwise1 "full of interesting anecdotes" type message.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.

Message 15 of 22 (537232) 11-27-2009 7:47 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus 11-01-2009 5:14 PM

Actually not one of my favourite Wounded King posts (one of the many great posts with references to pertinent and interesting papers etc), but as soon as I read it I wanted to draw big arrows around it and simply exclaim "This!" since it succinctly and simply cuts through the haze of misunderstandings and explains the issue that has dominated the thread.

quote:

---

In terms of the sort of long term complex gross morphological changes you are talking about, i.e. evolution of the eye, obviously both of these things must come into play. In terms of a simple demonstration of natural selection all we need is a population with allelic variation producing differential survival/reproductive success in a particular environment. Obviously the original source of this variation is likely to be due to mutation of some form but having observed that original mutation doesn't change the natural selection we can observe operating in the population subsequently.

---

I also point out that I was composing a post that was longer and more confusing version of this and so that probably factored heavily in to my decision to POTM it. Since I was thinking the same thoughts, and I'm incredibly awesome, this clearly deserves high praise.