 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:47 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig. I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance," and you have.
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
-- A2SG, see what happens when you respond without reading my posts? You embarrass yourself, once again....
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 04:55 am |
|
WingedBeast wrote: Common, Stiggy, can you once have a debate on the topic of the debate rather than a debate on your interpretation on what someone else said in that debate?
No.
He never has, and I'm certain he never will.
That isn't why Stiggy's here, realize. He comes here to stir shit up. Period.
This is what people fail to realize about Stiggy. He's not a debater, he's not here for intelligent or stimulating conversation, he's here to put on a show. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, as a showman, he's a brilliant performer.
So, whenever Stig enters a thread, just realize that the time for intelligent or meaningful conversation is over, and the Stiggy Show has begun.
Sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the performance!
-- A2SG, anyone trying to discuss an issue with him is just fodder for his particular brand of street theater.....
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Aug 10th, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Tryin' to live up to your name, Wrong-Way? Or maybe you'd like to claim you polled everyone.
I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance
Yeah, I know you did. Your predictive abilities make Jean Dixon look like a statistical scientist.
,"
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Those were your words. (Damn folks, can this guy set me up with easy answers or not?....... That's what I thought folks.......... And folks, I figured out what you thought about it without knowing what you think. Hahahaha.
A2SG, see what happens when you respond without reading my posts?
Never tried it. So then tell me. What will happen to me if I decide to quit reading your posts, other than missing out on some real classic wrongness, Wrong-Way?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 12:01 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
Funny that someone who gives me grief about starting sentences with "Actually" would start so many of his own sentences with "And yet" - which is the same thing, only more stilted.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1870 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 05:01 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Tryin' to live up to your name, Wrong-Way? Or maybe you'd like to claim you polled everyone.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where you think I claimed I read anyone's mind.
I only see a reference to a betting pool, one where people, traditionally, enter their bets either verbally or on paper.
I've never heard of a telepathic poll, Stig. Have you?
I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance
Yeah, I know you did. Your predictive abilities make Jean Dixon look like a statistical scientist.
I don't know her record off hand (I know she's reputed to have predicted Kennedy's assassination, but I don't know what she actually said before that event), but in this case, I was spot on.
You have continued to flaunt your ignorance about what evolution really is, and you are still doing so.
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Those were your words.
Yep, and not a single mention, or even anything that hints at, telepathy.
Just an ordinary betting pool.
reading my posts?
Never tried it.
I don't need telepathy to know that you never tried to read my posts, that's evident in your replies.
-- A2SG, man, this is easy!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 05:18 am |
|
You have continued to flaunt your ignorance about what evolution really is, and you are still doing so.
I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate, and...
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out. Apparently he's never heard of "change in allele frequency over time".
2a) Of course, he'll no doubt claim that the evolutionary biologists have the definition wrong. Futuyama would be so proud...
ETA: And of course, he'll completely ignore any links you provide, even if they're from a reputable source like New Scientist. He's simply too lazy to click and read...as evidenced by him getting all excited because I quoted the top few paragraphs of one of the pages I'd directly linked to previously.
Last edited on Tue Aug 11th, 2009 09:14 am by Aldaron
____________________
|
WingedBeast
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 03:18 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: You have continued to flaunt your ignorance about what evolution really is, and you are still doing so.
I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate, and...
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out. Apparently he's never heard of "change in allele frequency over time".
2a) Of course, he'll no doubt claim that the evolutionary biologists have the definition wrong. Futuyama would be so proud...
ETA: And of course, he'll completely ignore any links you provide, even if they're from a reputable source like New Scientist. He's simply too lazy to click and read...as evidenced by him getting all excited because I quoted the top few paragraphs of one of the pages I'd directly linked to previously.
To be fair, that whole "lower to higher" mindset has been how evolution has been taught for a long time. Mainly, it's been taught that way because we considered ourselves (humans) inherantly a higher race than other animals.
It, in fact, took me a while of thought to realize that evolution isn't about such value judgements. And, the term "to evolve" personally has always been used to better yourself. Becoming something lesser is often described as "devolving". As in "You used to be this great man, but look at the drunken loser you've devolved into."
It's understandable because, at this point, the common linguistic use is just such a force of its own that it's hard to get around in order to actually educate people. It's the same as with the common use versus scientific use of the word "theory".
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
WingedBeast wrote: Aldaron wrote: You have continued to flaunt your ignorance about what evolution really is, and you are still doing so.
I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate, and...
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out. Apparently he's never heard of "change in allele frequency over time".
2a) Of course, he'll no doubt claim that the evolutionary biologists have the definition wrong. Futuyama would be so proud...
ETA: And of course, he'll completely ignore any links you provide, even if they're from a reputable source like New Scientist. He's simply too lazy to click and read...as evidenced by him getting all excited because I quoted the top few paragraphs of one of the pages I'd directly linked to previously.
To be fair, that whole "lower to higher" mindset has been how evolution has been taught for a long time. Mainly, it's been taught that way because we considered ourselves (humans) inherantly a higher race than other animals.
It, in fact, took me a while of thought to realize that evolution isn't about such value judgements. And, the term "to evolve" personally has always been used to better yourself. Becoming something lesser is often described as "devolving". As in "You used to be this great man, but look at the drunken loser you've devolved into."
It's understandable because, at this point, the common linguistic use is just such a force of its own that it's hard to get around in order to actually educate people. It's the same as with the common use versus scientific use of the word "theory".
Yep, that's fair in a general sense (although if that's how it's being taught, the teachers need a swift kick up the rear end)...it just irritates me when some cretinist is busy telling me how evolution can't possibly work, and then they throw that in as the meat of their understanding of what evolution is.
They do it all the time, because their definitions come from Answers in Genesis or their moron pastor, rather than from an actual evolutionary biologist like Futuyama.
____________________
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
WingedBeast wrote: 1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate, and...
There's no way humans are going to speciate any time soon.
You don't see speciation where an organism is ideally suited to its environment; sponges have remained generally unchanged for millions and millions of years. And humans are in fact ideally suited to our environment - particularly because we have the ability to create our own environment.
And, IIRC, it generally requires an isolated population for speciation to occur. Due to global travel, nearly every member of the species has sexual access to nearly every other member of the species. The only set of humans we could "speciate" from is ancient humans - and it would be nearly impossible to test whether modern humans are able to reproduce with humans who died 100,000 years ago.
I do sometimes wonder if we'll see speciation when we colonize our first distant planet. Since the enviornment would be so different there, it seems likely. Maybe, ten thousand years or so from now, there'll be a Homo alphacentauris.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:24 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
Funny that someone who gives me grief about starting sentences with "Actually" would start so many of his own sentences with "And yet" - which is the same thing, only more stilted.
Actually, I fail to see any greater stiltedness in one or the other. Rhetorical stilts are needed to prop up a lack of substance. That doesn't seem to apply to either the simple word or the simple phrase involved. And actually, your "actuallies" are usually your introduction into a thread and seem to imply a general debunking of content, while my "and yets" are isolatated refutations of repetitive Wrong-Way wrong-waywardness. So actually, its like comparing apples with oranges. And yet it's not since both are fruits.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
Funny that someone who gives me grief about starting sentences with "Actually" would start so many of his own sentences with "And yet" - which is the same thing, only more stilted.
Actually, I fail to see any greater stiltedness in one or the other. Rhetorical stilts are needed to prop up a lack of substance. That doesn't seem to apply to either the simple word or the simple phrase involved. And actually, your "actuallies" are usually your introduction into a thread and seem to imply a general debunking of content, while my "and yets" are isolatated refutations of repetitive Wrong-Way wrong-waywardness. So actually, its like comparing apples with oranges. And yet it's not since both are fruits.
There goes the interesting conversation.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
Funny that someone who gives me grief about starting sentences with "Actually" would start so many of his own sentences with "And yet" - which is the same thing, only more stilted.
Actually, I fail to see any greater stiltedness in one or the other. Rhetorical stilts are needed to prop up a lack of substance. That doesn't seem to apply to either the simple word or the simple phrase involved. And actually, your "actuallies" are usually your introduction into a thread and seem to imply a general debunking of content, while my "and yets" are isolatated refutations of repetitive Wrong-Way wrong-waywardness. So actually, its like comparing apples with oranges. And yet it's not since both are fruits.
And yet, I frequently refute individual assertions you've made using sentences prefaced by the word "actually" - as, for example, here. Except that, here, I said "and yet" instead of "actually," because I decided that I wanted to sound like an overdramatic mystery novel. You know - stilted.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Tryin' to live up to your name, Wrong-Way? Or maybe you'd like to claim you polled everyone.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where you think I claimed I read anyone's mind.
Yeah. Apparently. Here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Your words, W-W. They ain't goin' away.
I only see a reference to a betting pool, one where people, traditionally, enter their bets either verbally or on paper.
Ah, excellent. You are even more skilled than a gifted telepathist. On August 6th, before you began your garveyard Professional AARM Poster shift, you sent out a secret poll (at least it wasn't on AARM, which by the reasoning here, means it was secret) and polled every AARM member as to whether I allegedly flaunt my alleged ignorance. And apparently you took the pool BETWEEN asking the first above question in green and announcing the unanimity of the vote (or pool as you call it), also in green.
No telepathy, eh? Is my poll theory correct then? Should I poll everyone as to whether they were polled about my allegedly flaunting my alleged ignorance, Wrong-Way?
I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance
Yeah, I know you did. Your predictive abilities make Jean Dixon look like a statistical scientist.
I don't know her record off hand (I know she's reputed to have predicted Kennedy's assassination, but I don't know what she actually said before that event), but in this case, I was spot on.
And yet you weren't. You took no such poll and you have no such unanimous votes. You just love to bolster that new name of yours, doncha, W-W?
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
It just really can't get any easier than this. C'mon! Gimme a challenge. Bring on emmylou.
Anyway, here it is again for you to deny:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
I keep telling you. Those words will reappear every time you deny them. (This makes shooting fish in barrels feel like breaking into Fort Knox.)
Last edited on Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:41 pm by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11th, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: You have continued to flaunt your ignorance about what evolution really is, and you are still doing so.
I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate,
ASTOUNDING!! You're dropping your jaw over precisely the opposite of what I contended. In fact, let me just change the wording slightly:
I contend that the fact that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate CANNOT mean that we can observe humans speciate,
In other words, we cannot observe humans speciate, yet you accept as FACT that alleged human ancestor speciated BIG TIME!!
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out.
That is evolution in a nutshell. The fact that you choose not to call the survivors a "higher" species is countered by the very claims of evolution, where we can hear all about how the postulated ancestors were invariably less "advanced" than their descendants. Now if you'd like to make the case that the Australopithecenes were not a lower species than you and I are now members of, I'm all ears.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
Funny that someone who gives me grief about starting sentences with "Actually" would start so many of his own sentences with "And yet" - which is the same thing, only more stilted.
Actually, I fail to see any greater stiltedness in one or the other. Rhetorical stilts are needed to prop up a lack of substance. That doesn't seem to apply to either the simple word or the simple phrase involved. And actually, your "actuallies" are usually your introduction into a thread and seem to imply a general debunking of content, while my "and yets" are isolatated refutations of repetitive Wrong-Way wrong-waywardness. So actually, its like comparing apples with oranges. And yet it's not since both are fruits.
And yet, I frequently refute individual assertions you've made using sentences prefaced by the word "actually" - as, for example, here.
Actually, that's a rather self-serving example, since the example occurs subsequent to the claim, by the claimant himself. For exemplia, I could now claim that I often use the stilted and mixed-up linguistic phrase "for exemplia" to begin examples, and say, "for example, here," and yet if I did that, I would be a silly man.
Except that, here, I said "and yet" instead of "actually," because I decided that I wanted to sound like an overdramatic mystery novel. You know - stilted.
And yet no ordinary person would have evocations of Mickey Spillane or Alfred Hitcock when hearing the rather innocuous and highly unstilted phrase "and yet."
I can see you at a board meeting now.
CEO: Our expenditures increased last month and our payroll was up, and yet we did manage to eke out a profit.
Hype: Ohhh, sir. Do tell. I love a mystery. Will you turn out the lights and tell us more?
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
JackFlash
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Aug 3rd, 2009 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 89 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
| Shut up Stiggy, this is an adult conversation.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:08 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out.
That is evolution in a nutshell. The fact that you choose not to call the survivors a "higher" species is countered by the very claims of evolution, where we can hear all about how the postulated ancestors were invariably less "advanced" than their descendants. Now if you'd like to make the case that the Australopithecenes were not a lower species than you and I are now members of, I'm all ears.
No, that's really not right. In fact, Darwin said it himself:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
I suppose you could claim that a species is "higher" simply by virtue of the fact that it's better suited to its environment - but that doesn't imply any additional value judgments.
In fact, species often lose certain advantages as a consequence of evolution, because the metabolic cost of those advantages is too high. For example, one of our frugivore ancestors lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C internally. This was either simply not selected against, because of its diet, or was actually beneficial because of the metabolic cost of synthesizing the vitamin. (I suspect the latter, because fruit bats and guinea pigs, which also eat fruit-rich diets, also selected out the ability).
But would you really claim that a species prone to scurvy is "higher" or "more advanced" than a species that isn't?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:10 am |
|
JackFlash wrote: Shut up Stiggy
I don't believe I'll be doing that, Jack Flash from Waco.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:11 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:And yet no ordinary person would have evocations of Mickey Spillane or Alfred Hitcock when hearing the rather innocuous and highly unstilted phrase "and yet."
I can see you at a board meeting now.
CEO: Our expenditures increased last month and our payroll was up, and yet we did manage to eke out a profit.
Hype: Ohhh, sir. Do tell. I love a mystery. Will you turn out the lights and tell us more?
It's true that "and yet" does sound less stilted in the middle of a sentence than at the beginning, where it's better suited to sentences like "And yet, while the safe stood apparently untouched, the diamonds were missing."
And I have to wonder if omitting a "c" and an "h" from Hitchcock's name was something of a Freudian slip.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:18 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out.
That is evolution in a nutshell. The fact that you choose not to call the survivors a "higher" species is countered by the very claims of evolution, where we can hear all about how the postulated ancestors were invariably less "advanced" than their descendants. Now if you'd like to make the case that the Australopithecenes were not a lower species than you and I are now members of, I'm all ears.
No, that's really not right. In fact, Darwin said it himself:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Exactly. The strongest. The ones most adaptable to change.
I suppose you could claim that a species is "higher" simply by virtue of the fact that it's better suited to its environment - but that doesn't imply any additional value judgments.
That's why you should have read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with value judgements. The superiority is in terms of physiological and mental skills, as I said. One with prehensile skills is stronger than one without. And you simply cannot deny that evolution teaches the ....well..... the evolution of a grasping hand from a non-grasping hand, eo ipso.... lower to higher.
I mean, c'mon. This is going to be hard to deny. Evolution teaches that all animal life is ultimately descended from cellular, microscopic growth. To make the case that an adult elephant or a goose or a june bug is not a higher species than an adult microscopic clump of cells is going to be a hard sale.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Current time is 09:19 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
|
