Guano (3)

Dirty penguin

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment. Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

[New page as links no longer work properly on Guano (2)]

Post n° 56711

157 thoughts on “Guano (3)

  1. Entropy:

    Nonlin has a talent for contradicting herself/himself, and for being pretty hard to be shown so. She/he then just denies or goes to some tangential thing, also wrong. His paragraphs at the OP are filled with contradictions. I tried once to show Nonlin just one contradiction, and no way she/he would understand it. She/he would go on and on on tangents, until she/he decided that I was too impolite, rather than confronting her/his mistake. From my experience, I’d guess that even if you showed 1000 articles where fitness is defined apart from survival, you won’t convince her/him.

    You and your buddies Corneel and Adapa are just squatters. I have yet to see any original idea coming from your dead brains.

    Instead of brain dead comments like that, why don’t you show “fitness separate from survival” and be done? Also, what “contradiction”? Are you sure it’s not just in your dead brain?

  2. What “common ground”? The only thing common has to be the observable. And one thing we have never observed is exquisite design just popping into existence for no reason whatsoever, aka the evolutionary mythology.

    That’s not evolution you idiot, that’s creationism.

  3. CharlieM:

    Only our physical senses tell us this. Otherwise there’d be no sound understanding of birds as existing in one clade.

    You need to have a think about the difference between our sense experience before and after our thinking minds interpret what is sensed.

    Gee, dumbass, I have. That’s why I can discuss generalizing from the facts, while you’re blithering stupidly about “archetypes.”

    “Bird” is a concept, not a bare perception.

    Well, chump, that’s why I discussed them as different, like,

    No, the differences are objectively real. The concept comes from generalizing from the observed characters.

    Of course it’s more complex than that, but that gets to the gist of empiricism. Your projection of your ignorance and incompetence, rather than discussing the issue, only shows how little you’ve thought about these matters.

    You would do well to consider the difference.

    You would do well not to project your failings onto others.

    Glen Davidson

  4. colewd:
    Flightless animals don’t have aerodynamic wings, feathers properly oriented, bones the right size and the proper joints etc.

    Yes they do you willfully ignorant fucking moron.

    Gradual Assembly of Avian Body Plan Culminated in Rapid Rates of Evolution across the Dinosaur-Bird Transition

    The fossil record is FULL of non-flying theropods with all the precursor part. All that had to happen was wing assisted incline running (WAIR) evolved into gliding evolved into longer and longer flapping glides evolved into primitive powered flight.

    Wing-assisted incline running and the evolution of flight.

    Right now you’re behaving like a petulant child who won’t eat his vegetables because he thinks they’re icky.

  5. CharlieM:

    Well I would say that it is still a fact that this blog is littered with unnecessary, off-putting remarks that do nothing to further discussion. Comments like these are best ignored and this would be a better place without them. Do you agree?

    Readers already have the power to ignore comments. They even have the power, via the Ignore feature, to ignore commenters.

    It’s up to them whether they choose to exercise those powers, and that’s how it should be. The last thing we need is some doofus like Neil running around closing comments on threads.

Comments are closed.