Petty demands of "yes, no" questions will be ignored because you are ignoring the points I raised.
Further posts ignoring the need for data to answer these questions will be ignored by me until they are dealt with.
The Forum Guidelines request that you debate constructively, and declarations like this work against this goal. Please work proactively toward developing ways of constructively exchanging viewpoints and information with your fellow debaters.
This message has been edited by Admin, 11-21-2005 08:47 AM
For saying someone had no integrity instead of saying that their posts demonstrated a lack of integrity.
This comment demonstrates a lack of perspicacity. Of course, this is only a comment about your post and should not be construed as implying anything about you personally. No association whatsoever should be inferred. By they way, your post also demonstrates a lack of personal hygiene and general attractiveness. Again, not a personal comment, I'm only talking about your post. :D
Seriously, my advice is always the same: keep discussion focused on the thread's topic and not on the people you're debating with. Adding a level of indirection so you can say, for example, "I only said his post was stupid, not that he was stupid," isn't a significant distinction.
As the opening post makes clear, this thread is about whether the peppered moth is a legitimate example of natural selection in the wild. Unless it is being argued that melanism in the peppered moth requires addition and deletion of an entire gene, the possibility of mutations introducing new genes is off-topic for this thread.