Message 1 of 33 (44784) 07-01-2003 3:34 PM

These topics listed at the above page are still available for additions.
-----

Now for July 2003 (as per previous months):

quote:

---

Please post your votes for the July, 2003, Post of the Month here. Include author, forum name, thread name, post number, eg:

Name: Velvet Tongue
Forum: Evolution
Thread: I'm no monkey
Post #: 17

---

A link to the message, and perhap a SHORT comment would also be nice. But, this is NOT a place to debate the referenced topic.

I think that a fairly liberal use of this topic would be a good thing for indexing some nice messages that are otherwise doomed to be lost in the clutter. So, if you encounter a message that seems to say something of special substance, please give it a plug/reference in this topic.

Adminnemooseus

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-02-2003]

Message 2 of 33 (45005) 07-03-2003 7:36 PM

makes clear the distinction between evidence for something and the explanation of something.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=73&m=178#178 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=73&m=178#178">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=73&m=178#178

Message 3 of 33 (45195) 07-06-2003 1:37 AM

quote:

---

I doubt if the less than 1% difference between chimp and human DNA has anything to do with our drastically different phenotypes. It is far more likely that the structural chromosomal differences serve to modify the rate and timing of critical developmental transformations much as Goldschmidt predicted 64 years ago. I would also regard a structural chromosomal change as a mutation whether or not it involved a base pair substitution. salty

---

Maybe this item has already been debated into the ground before (I really have trouble following the heavy genetics topics), but I, very much not a biologist, did find this as something perhaps worth persuing. Are there at least some valid posibilities here?

Remember, do any discussion at the source topic, not in this topic. Or maybe it belongs in a different topic.

Cheers,
Moose

Message 4 of 33 (45255) 07-07-2003 2:39 AM

I'm not convinced Rrhain is the most honest debater but I did really like this post. Especially the last part. Then again picking on creationists of Jet's ilk isn't a monumental task. Nonetheless a fun read.

(Sorry, Rrhain, if you find I'm damning you with faint praise. I really did like this post.)

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-07-2003]

Message 5 of 33 (45318) 07-07-2003 2:46 PM

Name: MrHambre
Forum: Intelligent Design
Thread: intelligent design, right and wrong
Number: 103

An intelligent design double header from earlier today - No further comment.

Moose

Message 6 of 33 (45319) 07-07-2003 2:49 PM

[Added post number to URL. --Admin]

Again, someone expresses something I "should have thought of myself". And he does it very well.

He covers the leaps of ID'ers from unknowns in evolutionary thought, to a designer, to an super natural designer to the xian god to morality clearly, concisely and, I think, devestatingly.

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-07-2003]

Message 7 of 33 (45321) 07-07-2003 3:16 PM

[Added post number to URL. --Admin]

This is a lesson to all of us in how to deal with annoying, insulting, incompetant individuals.

Notice that you can read the whole post and there is almost nothing there that is nasty in anyway. Then you can read it with just the write inflection and it makes the addressee look like an idiot.

On "paper" it is simply asking very reasonable questions. I love it. This is the right approach to us when dealing with some of the more "difficult" members. (To bad I can't manage it even in this post )

It's almost enough to make me fall in love with the author sight unseen since I do like brains.

[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-07-2003]

Message 8 of 33 (45411) 07-08-2003 2:15 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed 07-07-2003 3:16 PM

Thanks for the nomination.

Do I have to start thinking of what to wear to the awards ceremony?

Oh, Ned, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm married. I do like admirers, though. I certainly allow you to pine for me from afar.

Message 9 of 33 (45414) 07-08-2003 2:21 PM

Very clear, very convincing, very logical.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-08-2003]

{Added URL to message number (and also a few other minor tweeks) - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-08-2003]

Message 11 of 33 (45562) 07-09-2003 9:36 PM

Comments on social Darwinism. Probably has been said before elsewhere, but here's a current version.

Moose

Message 12 of 33 (45649) 07-10-2003 12:38 PM

Original and fresh exposition of the scientific perspective.

Message 13 of 33 (45877) 07-13-2003 12:41 AM

Forum: Dates and Dating

Thread: Buz's Refutation of All Radiometric Dating Methods

Number: 215

I have not been witness to this very often. Maybe 3 or 4 times in as many years.

I can confidently say, however, that nobody delivers a decisive smackdown as well or as thoroughly as Percy.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-12-2003]

Edit by Adminnemooseus - Since the thread is currently at message 214, I presume that is the message you meant. Either that, or you're predicting something yet to come.

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-13-2003]

Message 14 of 33 (45960) 07-14-2003 10:32 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus 07-01-2003 3:34 PM

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=83&m=64#64

From the acknowledged Travis Bickle of our discussion group. The last paragraph of this post has to be read to be believed.

------------------
Quien busca, halla

Message 15 of 33 (46076) 07-15-2003 9:47 AM

Reply to: Message 14 by MrHambre 07-14-2003 10:32 AM

{NOTE from Adminnemooseus: Remember, this is NOT a place to debate the referenced topic.}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-15-2003]