Evolutionary textbooks need rewriting again. Why not scrap them to save trees?

Each time I stumble upon a provocative article like this it makes me wonder what makes one so certain that for one evolutionary failure another evolutionary bluff is going to be the answer… Is it the blind and absolute commitment to materialism?

How multi-celled animals developed. Evolutionary discovery to rewrite text books

“New findings challenge the long-standing idea that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.”

Biologists for decades believed the existing theory was a no-brainer, as sponge choanocytes look so much like single-celled choanoflagellates — the organism considered to be the closest living relatives of the animals,” she said.

“But their transcriptome signatures simply don’t match, meaning that these aren’t the core building blocks of animal life that we originally thought they were.

This technology has been used only for the last few years, but it’s helped us finally address an age-old question, discovering something completely contrary to what anyone had ever proposed.”

“We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said.

“Now we have an opportunity to re-imagine the steps that gave rise to the first animals, the underlying rules that turned single cells into multicellular animal life.”

Now, the Darwinian Police and the damage control and propaganda machine are going to get busy… The strategy never changes though:

“To us it looks like it could have evolved, so it must have evolved.” The “HOW” it evolved issue is never addressed and the testing of the hypothesis always remains in the realm of speculative, evolutionary science…

1+

116 thoughts on “Evolutionary textbooks need rewriting again. Why not scrap them to save trees?

  1. OMagain,

    Nothing personal, and I think it commendable and valiant that you fight for what you believe in, but seriously, there is no salvation in in Darwinism, and for that reason, given it’s flimsy status relative to real APPLICABLE scientific theories like Quantum Mechanics (QM), Electromagnetism — your view point just isn’t for me.

    At least QM does something for the world of modern science and technology, and it may even point to the existence of a God who is the Ultimate final cause of all things. But Darwinism? I find nothing redeeming in it practically, philosophically, nor scientifically.

    0
  2. stcordova: Nothing personal, and I think it commendable and valiant that you fight for what you believe in, but seriously, there is no salvation in in Darwinism,

    Sal,
    I’m affraid you have missed the point…
    Believing in something doesn’t make it necessarily true, does it?
    While not the same kind of comparison to the belief in Darwinism, the Nazis believed their ideology to be not only superior and true, but also worth to die for…
    Some of Hitler’s generals after months or years of court proceedings remained adomant and defiant despite the evidence that they were responsible for lives of hundreds of thousands of people…

    On the way to the execution, one of the generals yelled: “Heil Hitler!

    Was his valiancy for his beliefs commendable?

    You must not forget that Darwinism is an ideology that attracts certain kind of people for certain kinds of reasons…

    If there were scientific, testable evidence for Darwinism, we wouldn’t have zealots like OMagain….

    0
  3. J-Mac:
    A widely held but rarely tested hypothesis?

    And this is wrong because? I suspect that you don’t know what the word hypothesis means. Hint: it doesn’t mean “something believed without question.”

    J-Mac:
    What’s new? The evolution of animal multicellularity is assumed and reluctantly tested just in case it could be wrong…

    What makes you think that anybody was reluctant to test it? The fact that the article was published in one of the high-impact scientific journals makes me suspect that testing hasn’t been easy. That they were eager to test it. Did you read the article? Did they say that they didn’t actually want to do this? If not, then why your idiotic assumption that they were reluctant? Why not read and figure it out instead? Learn something? Is your religion one where “The magical Being In The Sky” is opposed to decent interactions between “His” “Creations”?

    J-Mac:
    This paper is a great example what happens when someone actually bothers to test the widely assumed hypothesis…

    You’re an idiot. I want to test lots of hypotheses, only the data is not always there for the analyses to be performed. If it were up to you, these authors would not have had funds to test anything.

    J-Mac:
    What’s the solution?

    More funds for science.

    J-Mac:
    Another hypothesis based on an assumption that evolution must have happened that will not be subjected to the scientific method testing in order to avoid the embarrassment of the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment that had to be downgraded to the longest running Long Term Evolutionary Excuses…

    Woa, your mind misfires spectacularly. Here you’re saying that the article did not use the scientific method/ Then why did you bother posting about it? Just an opportunity for you to put your stupidity in spectacular display? You don’t know what the scientific method entails. All you have is some vague kindergarden/creationist idea about it. You should go study and stop ridiculing yourself.

    0
  4. And if they were reluctant to test it, who does J-Mac think forced them to do it? Jesus?

    0
  5. stcordova: Nothing personal, and I think it commendable and valiant that you fight for what you believe in, but seriously, there is no salvation in in Darwinism

    I’m not looking for any. But there’s a kind of honesty in facing up to reality how it is rather then how you’d like it to be, no?

    And reality seems to be telling us that your god is not needed.

    stcordova: your view point just isn’t for me.

    And what viewpoint is that, precisely? That the evidence seems to point to one thing and not another? Sure, that’s my “viewpoint”. And if by “viewpoint” you mean following the evidence where it leads, are you sure you want to say that’s not for you?

    I was raised a Roman Catholic. I followed the evidence away from that. So don’t talk to me about my “viewpoint”.

    0
  6. J-Mac: You must not forget that Darwinism is an ideology that attracts certain kind of people for certain kinds of reasons…

    Yes, indeed. All those university professors, working scientists and everyone involved in biology, a Nazi according to J-Mac.

    It can’t be that your ideas are worthless, rather it’s the jackbooted nazis keeping you down!

    heh. Sad really.

    0
  7. J-Mac: If there were scientific, testable evidence for Darwinism, we wouldn’t have zealots like OMagain….

    Where does the first error appear on this scientific, testable evidence for “Darwinism”: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    If you can’t say then you are admitting that you are wrong and such evidence does exist.

    Now, speak about zealots again, it’s amusing.

    0
  8. J-Mac: Believing in something doesn’t make it necessarily true, does it?

    I don’t believe in it. I accept it as the best supported proposal. You are conflating your use of “belief” with accepting reality. You believe in your shitty deity despite the evidence, not because of it.

    0
  9. J-Mac: What’s new? The evolution of animal multicellularity is assumed and reluctantly tested just in case it could be wrong…

    Why would you test something you’ve assumed? If you test it then by definition you have not assumed it?

    Does your god think well of you casting aspersions on others illegitimately?

    Why don’t you pretend it was your kids using your account. That seems to “work”.

    0
  10. J-Mac: If there were scientific, testable evidence for Darwinism, we wouldn’t have zealots like OMagain….

    The funny thing is I’m not actually making an argument for “Darwinism”. There’s really no need. The textbooks are written. The courses are being taught.

    I’m not actually making any sort of argument. Rather I’m trying to understand what your argument is, if it has any substance to it other then constant “Darwinism is wrong but I can’t actually say what is right”?

    If, according to you, Darwinism is dead and has been defeated by ID then why are you harping on about Darwinism instead of progressing ID?

    0
  11. OMagain: If, according to you, Darwinism is dead and has been defeated by ID then why are you harping on about Darwinism instead of progressing ID?

    This has always been my main problem with ID. No research, no proposals for research, no thought experiments that might suggest research.

    Interestingly, some folks just synthesized a complex chemical that is hoped to be useful in treating cancer. Reports are, they worked on the problem for decades.

    This might be called design, except that the chemical exists in nature, synthesized by a plant. The problem for medicine is quantity, not existence.

    The hurdle that Design need to clear is design from scratch. To demonstrate that life can be designed from first principles. Without waving a wand.

    0
  12. J-Mac: You must not forget that Darwinism is an ideology that attracts certain kind of people for certain kinds of reasons…

    Are you going to support your claim that you can have most of your brain removed and still retain normal function?

    Or would having that shown to be false be bad for whatever ideology that lie is propping up?

    0
  13. Darwinism needs more money to be spent to on the science already proven to be false?
    Do we really need to fund more pointless evolutionary experiments, like LTEE, to find out again that bacteria doesn’t want to evolve beyond bacteria?
    Bacteria without a flagellum can’t evolve anything resembling a paddle, not to mention a flagellum, and yet a Darwinists want us to buy a hypothesis that a 5 pound land walking mammal evolved into a 50 ton whale…
    Anybody can fantasize a hypothesis but it has to be more than science fiction for crying out loud…
    How about funding the 98% junk DNA hypothesis? For how many years have Darwinists been claiming that it’s a waste of tax payers money to fund research on junk DNA… Today, there is no doubt that among other things the so called junk DNA holds the answers to many genetic mysteries, including cancer, autism,, psychiatric disorders and so on. And yet, Larry Moran is determined to write a book on 90% junk DNA…Maybe tax payers should pay for the publishing of his book?

    0
  14. J-Mac:
    Darwinism needs more money to be spent to on the science already proven to be false?
    Do we really need to fund more pointless evolutionary experiments, like LTEE, to find out again that bacteria doesn’t want to evolve beyond bacteria?
    Bacteria without a flagellum can’t evolve anything resembling a paddle, not to mention a flagellum, and yet a Darwinists want us to buy a hypothesis that a 5 pound land walking mammal evolved into a 50 ton whale…
    Anybody can fantasize a hypothesis but it has to be more than science fiction for crying out loud…
    How about funding the 98% junk DNA hypothesis?For how many years have Darwinists been claiming that it’s a waste of tax payers money to fund research on junk DNA… Today, there is no doubt that among other things the so called junk DNA holds the answers to many genetic mysteries, including cancer, autism,, psychiatric disorders and so on. And yet, Larry Moran is determined to write a book on 90% junk DNA…Maybe tax payers should pay for the publishing of his book?

    Some times I wonder if a 100% of your DNA is junk. I mean, no one can be that stupid. Well, Maybe nonlin

    0
  15. J-Mac: Anybody can fantasize a hypothesis but it has to be more than science fiction for crying out loud…

    J-Mac, you wrote an OP on plants doing arithmetic. Could you please muster a tiny amount of self-awareness before releasing your comments?

    0
  16. Corneel: J-Mac, you wrote an OP on plants doing arithmetic. Could you please muster a tiny amount of self-awareness before releasing your comments?

    If plants don’t do mathematical calculations, they must’ve evolved some kind a watch to accurately measure time to dawn, no matter how long the night is, 8, 10 or 12 hours.
    But, no matter what length of the night, the plants use about 90% of their sugar reserves..and since photosynthesis is quantum, they must’ve evolved some kind a of a quantum watch…I don’t have solid proof yet, but it seems pretty evident that the plants “know” in advance how long the night is going to be…as indicated by their use of starch reserves…
    Darwinism is truly marvelous thanks to the omnipotent natural selection…😉

    0
  17. J-Mac: I don’t have solid proof yet, but it seems pretty evident that the plants “know” in advance how long the night is going to be…as indicated by their use of starch reserves…

    Sounds like an ideal research project. Grow some plants, change the length of night, see if you can catch the Intelligent Designer changing the plant’s internal clock!

    0
  18. J-Mac: … I don’t have solid proof yet, but it seems pretty evident …

    You are missing the point. Hence OMagain’s Homeric laughter.

    You accused proponents of “Darwinism” of dreaming up fantastic hypotheses while being reluctant to put them to the test. The truth is that there are plenty of studies addressing hypotheses within evolutionary biology (you describe one in your OP) while you yourself are launching bizarre theories based on nothing more than a hunch. That … ermmm somewhat diminishes our confidence in your judgements in these matters, see?

    0
  19. J-Mac:
    Darwinism needs more money to be spent to on the science already proven to be false?

    Darwinism? We know it’s not the whole story, but it’s not false. Natural selection does play a role in evolution. I still gave you, despite your idiocy, the benefit of the doubt and searched and searched, but nothing saying that natural selection doesn’t play a role in evolution.

    J-Mac:
    Do we really need to fund more pointless evolutionary experiments, like LTEE, to find out again that bacteria doesn’t want to evolve beyond bacteria?

    So much wrong with this. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. First you want scientists to test thise hypotheses, now you don’t want them to test anything. Worse, you think that evolution is a matter fo organisms “wanting” to evolve? And you think that’s “darwinism”? You’re amazingly dumb.

    J-Mac:
    Bacteria without a flagellum can’t evolve anything resembling a paddle, not to mention a flagellum,

    So you say, yet scientists have traced a lot of the evolutionary history of flagella, even different kinds of flagella.

    J-Mac:
    and yet a Darwinists want us to buy a hypothesis that a 5 pound land walking mammal evolved into a 50 ton whale…

    I don’t know what “Darwinists” want you to buy. As of me, I didn’t buy anything. I got informed, understood the evidence, and it looks pretty clear that whales evolved from land-dwelling animals. But buying it just because someone called “Darwinist” said so? of course not.

    J-Mac:
    Anybody can fantasize a hypothesis but it has to be more than science fiction for crying out loud…

    Yeah! Go for fantasies about absurd and incoherent magical beings in the sky instead!

    J-Mac:
    How about funding the 98% junk DNA hypothesis? For how many years have Darwinists been claiming that it’s a waste of tax payers money to fund research on junk DNA…

    I wonder where you got in touch with those so-called “Darwinists.” They seem somewhat uninformed and powerless in terms of what research should be funded. I know of lots of evolutionary biologists whose whole career had been about studying junk DNA, and none has had more trouble finding resources than people working on anything else. I also know lots of evolutionary biologists who would tell you that it is very important to keep investigating the regions that seem to be doing little, because they think, for good reasons, that even if most is actual junk, there might be treasures hidden within it.

    J-Mac:
    Today, there is no doubt that among other things the so called junk DNA holds the answers to many genetic mysteries, including cancer, autism,, psychiatric disorders and so on.

    How did they get to know that against the hordes of “Darwinists” who have been busy sopping every single scientist in the planet from studying junk DNA?

    J-Mac:
    And yet, Larry Moran is determined to write a book on 90% junk DNA … Maybe tax payers should pay for the publishing of his book?

    According to you, Larry Moran should not be able to write such book because the evil “Darwinists” won’t let him study the matter, and there should be no research on it at all. So, which is it? Are “Darwinists” stopping such studies or not?

    You’re an incoherent imbecile.

    0
  20. dazz (to J-Mac):
    Some times I wonder if a 100% of your DNA is junk. I mean, no one can be that stupid. Well, Maybe nonlin

    Please don’t discriminate Salvador.

    0
  21. stcordova: Thanks for the kind words.

    There are worse things then being stupid Sal….

    Smart people wasting their lives is one of them.

    0
  22. Sal,

    As suggested above, a further evolutionary problem is that human Type II topoisomerases are formed as two identical parts (a homodimer), but in bacteria such topoisomerses are made of 4 parts from 2 copies from two different genes, making it a “hetero-tetramer.” This makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but it makes total sense in intelligent design.

    Why does it makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint but makes total sense in intelligent design? You forgot to say….

    https://crev.info/2019/06/creationist-topoisomerase-research/

    0
  23. dazz: I don’t think Sal is stupid, just extremely deluded

    I think he believes big fish in a small pond is a good strategy.

    0
  24. OMagain:

    Why does it makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint but makes total sense in intelligent design?

    Even Darwinists had to say the pattern of heterotetramers in prokaryotes vs. homodimers in eukaryotes would have to evolve independently since the pattern can’t be explained by common descent, but something can’t evolve if it’s dead, and that there would be a strong case for that if the creatures are missing topoisomerase and wasn’t a parasite of some sort with a small genome living off a bigger creature.

    Do you think things can evolve if they are dead?

    0
  25. stcordova: Even Darwinists had to say the pattern of heterotetramers in prokaryotes vs. homodimers in eukaryotes would have to evolve independently since the pattern can’t be explained by common descent, but something can’t evolve if it’s dead, and that there would be a strong case for that if the creatures are missing topoisomerase and wasn’t a parasite of some sort with a small genome living off a bigger creature.

    Do you think things can evolve if they are dead?

    It’s another evolutionary miracle…

    How about this?

    Across cultures, between 2% and 5% of men are gay. That amounts to an evolutionary paradox: gay men have fewer children, so one would expect that the trait would disappear over time. But it hasn’t.”

    Another evolutionary miracle…

    0
  26. Corneel: You are missing the point. Hence OMagain’s Homeric laughter.

    You accused proponents of “Darwinism” of dreaming up fantastic hypotheses while being reluctant to put them to the test. The truth is that there are plenty of studies addressing hypotheses within evolutionary biology (you describe one in your OP) while you yourself are launching bizarre theories based on nothing more than a hunch. That … ermmmsomewhat diminishes our confidence in your judgements in these matters, see?

    It must be an adaptation very common in photons…and verified by many experiments, including the delayed choice quantum eraser…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

    You do believe in the results of scientific experiments, don’t you?
    I’m mean, if you don’t, you might as well remain a Darwinists with your faith based on speculative science rather than on experimental one… 😉

    0
  27. walto: You’re close, though. You’re sooooo close!

    You don’t think It can be proven?
    I know you don’t care because you are too lazy…

    0
  28. J-Mac: You don’t think It can be proven?

    Notice the careful phrasing.

    A less passive approach would be something like You don’t think I can prove it?. But of course we know how that goes already. How are your kids getting on in the basement replicating “quantum” J-Mac?

    So J-Mac is not even setting an expectation that he’s going to be the one putting any effort into demonstrating the validity of his claims. He seems to think this is sneaking past unnoticed, whereas of course it’s standard creationist fare.

    0
  29. J-Mac: I’m mean, if you don’t, you might as well remain a Darwinists with your faith based on speculative science rather than on experimental one…

    What experimental science are you talking about? What would you like to replace with what?

    If you had the opportunity to re-write the textbooks what would you add and what would you take away?

    You talk about “faith based” but I’ve already demonstrated that your idea of doing science is exactly that, hope somebody else does it for you. I’ve already linked you to the Templeton foundation who have given millions already to people like you to research things like “quantum”.

    Why don’t you apply?

    J-Mac: I know you don’t care because you are too lazy…

    Perhaps, perhaps…

    0
  30. stcordova: Even Darwinists had to say the pattern of heterotetramers in prokaryotes vs. homodimers in eukaryotes would have to evolve independently since the pattern can’t be explained by common descent, but something can’t evolve if it’s dead, and that there would be a strong case for that if the creatures are missing topoisomerase and wasn’t a parasite of some sort with a small genome living off a bigger creature.

    A “strong” case for that you say? Not an ironclad one? Not a 100% certain the engines canne give any more captain?

    You see, the thing is you say that and then say “therefore it must have been designed”. Except you don’t actually say that at all do you? You just keep talking about things evolving?

    So, even though you don’t say “therefore it must have been designed” that’s what you mean, right? But the thing is you only have a “strong” case. And a “strong” case is what, five-sigma?

    How you determining that, by the way? Based on what the Darwinists are saying it sounds like. But if they are wrong about everything how can you rely on their reasoning to come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design? If their reasoning is incorrect and yours is built upon theirs, their yours is also incorrect.

    stcordova: Do you think things can evolve if they are dead?

    Could you like me to where “even Darwinists had to say”… ?

    0
  31. J-Mac: Another evolutionary miracle…

    The ironic thing is it’s literally the other way round. You believe in interference in the quantum realm from some hidden designer, sounds like a miracle to me. Sal believes in interference in who knows what from some hidden designer called the abrahamic god.

    Science works to dispel our belief in miracles in a way that’s sort of it’s job. So what you’ve said there is a perfect example of projection. You are projecting your actual beliefs onto others.

    I mean, if evolution did not do it then by what non-miraculous process did it get done J-Mac?

    0
  32. It’s funny how J-Mac has literally nothing to say about the OP any more.

    There must be significant cognitive dissonance if you attempt to diss evolutionary science and link to significant work in the field, and yet never seem to do the same for what you actually believe.

    When do you suppose you’ll do an OP about something other then how evolution is wrong? What is right? How do you know? One presumes those things at least would be in your ability to actually discuss. However we’ll see, we’ll see….

    0
  33. J-Mac: It must be an adaptation very common in photons…and verified by many experiments, including the delayed choice quantum eraser…

    He said linking to a youtube video whose creators proudly state their mission as:

    We are a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We primarily do this in video form. We create videos to showcase a library of content that is creative and fun, yet will possess significant theological depth. This ministry intends to specialize in reaching the current generation, as well as future generations, with the power of digital video, social media, and whatever new technologies the future may bring.

    It’s a bit pathetic really.

    https://www.patreon.com/inspiringphilosophy

    0
  34. Got any actual non-ministry non-youtube support for your claims J-Mac or is that the extent of the people that agree with you?

    0
  35. stcordova:
    Even Darwinists had to say the pattern of heterotetramers in prokaryotes vs. homodimers in eukaryotes would have to evolve independently since the pattern can’t be explained by common descent,

    I don’t understand why you think that “Darwinists” wouldn’t like to say that the pattern evolved independently. I’d think that “Darwinists,” would not mind. But what do I know? I haven’t met a “Darwinist” in my whole life.

    I don’t have time to check Salvador’s claims about topoisomerases in “prokaryotes” and “eukaryotes,” but these groups of organisms have followed separated evolutionary histories for billions of years. I don’t see why it would be too hard for one to suffer a duplication and for the duplicates to eventually diverge enough that they’d form a heterotetramer.

    stcordova:
    but something can’t evolve if it’s dead,

    Where the hell is anything dead in those claimed differences Salvador? I doubt that you’re saying that the prokaryotes with heterotetramers are dead, or that the eukaryotes with homodimers are dead. So, what the hell are you talking about? Who’s dead? Why are they dead?

    stcordova:
    and that there would be a strong case for that if the creatures are missing topoisomerase and wasn’t a parasite of some sort with a small genome living off a bigger creature.

    Why would the evolution of a heterotetramer or a homodimer configuration involve dead organisms, or organisms without topoisomerases?

    stcordova:
    Do you think things can evolve if they are dead?

    I think you’re making some assumption that you’re not being explicit about. I also suspect that it’s some assumption that shows that you’re an idiot. But I’ll wait for you to surprise me with your amazing intellect before judging. Your explanation will surely show me. Right?

    0
  36. I didn’t know that a poster abstract was a “Mainstream Science Publication.” Let alone that the abstract was talking about gods and the impossibility of evolution. It looks more like a simple study on the variability of the C-terminal “domain” of the proteins.

    0
  37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647321/

    Type I topoisomerases (Topo I) introduce transient DNA single-stranded breaks in order to change the topological linking number of a double-stranded DNA molecule by steps of one, whereas type II topoisomerases (Topo II) introduce transient double-stranded breaks and change the linking number by steps of two. Although topological problems are obvious with circular DNA genomes, they also occur with linear DNA, as indicated by the requirement of topoisomerases in eukaryotes, and in viruses with long linear genomes (from around 100 kb to 1 Mb). From such consideration, one should have naively expected to find in all cells two homologous topoisomerases descendant from two ancestral topoisomerases present in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), which was usually assumed to contain a DNA genome (3). An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists

    An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists

    How would a Darwinist know what God ought or ought not to do?

    But Kirk Durston and friends think otherwise, since the patterns of difference are likely leverageable for biochemists if they reject common descent in favor of common design optimized for scientific discovery.

    But hey, I’m glad to see peer reviewed papers mention the Intelligent Designer. About time.

    0
  38. Also from the paper:

    the distribution of topoisomerases families and sub-families among modern organisms is not congruent with the universal tree of life

    Take that Darwinists!

    0
  39. stcordova:
    “An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists”

    How would a Darwinist know what God ought or ought not to do?

    1. “God”? Who the hell said “God”? I read “an intelligent designer”, not “God”. I told you that you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension. What do you in response? You prove my point.

    2. “Ought”? I read “would have probably”, not “ought.” I told you that you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension. What do you in response? You prove my point.

    3. Where do these authors declare being “Darwinists”? I could not find that anywhere in the whole text.

    4. Wasn’t it you who said that proteins were “optimized for discovery”?

    stcordova:
    But hey, I’m glad to see peer reviewed papers mention the Intelligent Designer. About time.

    The “Intelligent Designer”? I read “an intelligent designer”, not “The Intelligent Designer.”

    For fuck’s sake Salvador, stop ridiculing yourself. In just one comment you made my point time and again. You’re really an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension.

    0
  40. Distilling sum of Entropy’s arguments:

    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension
    you’re an illiterate idiot who cannot read for comprehension

    Can you explain your point again? 🙂

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.