Comments by Frankus1122

351. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188855 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Because I don't have a forked tongue, I tend to find yours disgusting.

Wrong again. It is not because of the dissimilarity that you have disgust. You still have not understood.
Why is a forked tongue disgusting to you? I like my forked tongue (as does my wife).
It is unusual. Not a whole lot of people have forked tongues. If you find it disgusting it is not because you do not have one yourself. Many of my friends, in fact all of my friends are not forked tongued. They do not find me disgusting. So your disgust cannot come from your lack of a bitongue (as we prefer to call it). My friends look at me as a person first. My physical characteristics are really not a factor in our friendship. I suppose they are not shallow superficial people with very little to no experience of life.
Your disgust has other roots.
Again, think on it.

352. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188845 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm

What you said... the analogy... the assumption... it's just... so wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up then.

353. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188842 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 7:14 pm

How can I be wrong by saying I *think* it disgusts *me* because I'm straight?

As mordacious said it is not 'because you are straight' that it disgusts you.
Here is a thought experiment for you:
I have brown hair. People with black hair disgust me because I have brown hair. The cause of my disgust is not due to my hair colour. It may be a belief that all people who are not like me are in some way deficient. I would take a closer look at why I think this.
Is someone who happens to be born with a hair colour different from mine somehow less than me? Are all black haired people the same? (Like all gays are more intelligent).

incontestability of gay rights

Gay people are people. Why would you treat a gay person any differently from a person with brown hair?
That may be a question for you to answer but perhaps after some sober thought.
Give it a few years.

354. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188781 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Al,
Have you read any of Peter Singer's work?
As I said, I haven't in a while. What I did read many years ago did cause me to rethink my underlying assumptions about human/animal rights.
I don't hunt my own food. I am aware of how the steak makes it to my table. It is not a particularly pleasant or even ethical journey.
Animals are not humans. They do however have emotional lives and feel pain. Our current methods of raising and slaughtering meat as an industry is not something I care to think about too deeply.
I know this is does not reflect very well on me but... I have to go now.

355. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188772 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

It's against the law here to feed deer, and not a good idea overall.

You can see that I am only plucking crabapples off the tree and throwing them to the deer. They were there to eat exactly that anyway.
No biggie.

356. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188762 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm

From Podaar

We have the technology to survive without munching on other living, sentient beings so therefore we should. I think that is the point they are making(?)

Peter Singer argues this extremely well. His arguments are so good and so convincing that I do not read what he writes any more.
BBQ season just isn't the same without a big juicy steak.
I know it is the equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and saying "I can't hear you." But (sticks fingers in ears) "I can't hear you!"

357. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188752 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Deer mordacious1,

Deer are a huge nuisance where I live. I have hit a couple myself. Driving at dawn or dusk is, well, dangerous.
I have a friend who is a vegetarian bird/animal loving farmer who banned hunting on his property. Banned hunting of all animals except deer. He now encourages the local Native population to hunt the deer on his property as much as they want. They eat way too much of his crop, which is his livelihood.

To see just how many of them there are and how used to humans they have become watch this video of me feeding deer in my front yard last summer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJNWDrbBMwg

358. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188631 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 9:36 am

Appleby,

My point is that the question has been decided. You may wish to dispassionately discuss bringing back slavery as a thought experiment.
No thanks.
Boring.
Like you.

359. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #188623 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 9:29 am

djspideyspinster,

Perhaps you could inform us as to the deficiencies of Richard Dawkins' understanding of theology. What aspect of God has been misinterpreted or misrepresented? Which God are we talking about? Bible god? Koran god? OT god? NT god? Catholic god? United church god? Baptist god? Mormon god? Rastafarian god?
Is it one of the above? Or is it some New-Agey type god that is 'spiritual'.
When you have decided that then you will need to provide the evidence as to why the god you chose is the right one with the right characteristics.
But perhaps I am also indulging in sophomoric forays into areas beyond my depth. Agian, if this is so please point out, specifically, where I have gone astray.

360. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188614 by Frankus1122 on June 4, 2008 at 9:00 am

Appleby,

You have the option to recant and join the civilized world. Your questions about the 'scientific' arguments against bestiality are misplaced. Our morals are derived, in part, through discourse such as we are having here.
How women (or animals)are treated in other parts of the world is morally repugnant to 'us'. Is there a scientific reason? Perhaps not. There are logical, rational reasons which many have provided on this thread. We decide what is right and wrong as a society. Our parliments create laws which reflect how 'we' feel about moral issues.
You are on the wrong side of the fence here. Once again I implore you to step back and stop vigorously defending the indefensible.

361. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #188308 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Too often arguments against faith-based schooling adopt the patronising tone of superior knowledge.

Well, duh.

This argument leads to a line we should not cross, where children are denied the right to an education whose values reflect the faith of their families and community.

I'm not sure about this. I am slightly less concerned about values being taught than I am about factual information. Is it a reflection of a moral value to teach children the earth is only 6000 years old? How does being taught the facts of evolution impinge upon me loving my neighbour?

When the dude says education should reflect 'values' he means wacky koo koo bible lies should be taught as factual truth. That has nothing to do with values.

362. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188305 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Appleby,
Your comments have met with some pretty hostile reaction. You might want to step back a moment and consider why this is so.
No one intentionally harbours false beliefs; we generally think what we think is accurate and true. Occasionally we are wrong.
Sometimes these beliefs affect our opinions on other matters in adverse ways.
You might want to check out more closely what others have been saying. Look at it from a different angle. Consider that you may be the owner of some fairly vile beliefs. But the good thing about beliefs is they can change. It is kinda like what Groucho Marks said: Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

363. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188296 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

keith

I hope you realise that my 'that's just showing off' comment was a joke.

I understand. I am joking most of the time. My avatar seems fitting to my general attitude: sarcastic self deprecation (when I am not blowing my own horn) and gentle mockery.
I am basically here for the laughs.

However, my own favorite writer, Vladimir Nabokov

I think I've listed Pale Fire as my favourite book on my Facebook page.
And while we are on Nabakov, one of my 13 year old students told me last week that Lolita was her favourite movie. Can you say awkward and uncomfortable?

364. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188206 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 10:47 am

Appleby said:

You're right. You know... one thing I like about homosexuals is that in my experience, they're more intelligent than heterosexuals.

I know you have qualified this statement with "in my experience" but I think it speaks to the heart of the issue here. You seem to look at homosexuals as a group rather than individuals. A gay couple is a pair of individuals. Other than their sex lives there is no way you can distinguish a gay couple from a hetero couple. Some gay people are really stupid.
Some heterosexual people are really stupid.
It has nothing to do with their sexuality; it is a brain thing.
Some homosexual men would make wonderful loving parents. Some would not.
Some heterosexual men would make wonderful loving parents. Some would not.

As has been said again and again, you are wrong to treat individuals as anything other than that.

365. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188054 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

I don't know how this thread has degenerated into a lot of bluster about something so simple.
Homosexual couples should be 'allowed' to adopt children in all circumstances. There may be factors which would preclude them but these would be the same for non gay couples.

That is the end of it.

366. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188037 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 7:07 am

This one is up there with the classic: "I'm not racist but..." followed by some racist rant.

This reminds me of my feelings toward Cartomancer:
I'm not gay but... I'd certainly buy him a Coke.

367. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188021 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 6:55 am

Al said:

He kept trying to convince me I was gay

You're not? You certainly look gay.

(giggles hysterically)

368. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188015 by Frankus1122 on June 3, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #187997 by hungarianelephant

That is new. I thought for sure I was going to link to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

And I've linked to this many times before and will do so again. I think it may actually be Mrs. Appleby (mother)talking about her son Appleby Jr.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeahDax24Dg

369. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187642 by Frankus1122 on June 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Only skimmed through the last few hundred posts but it seems we are on the topic of gay parents. I heard an interesting radio programme on the weekend regarding same sex couples in nature. It appears as though about 30 percent of albatross have two females taking care of the eggs/ young. Some are in stable 'relationships' lasting years. One female mates with a male and then the two females raise the young.

I know of a gay couple who are really shitty parents. But that is because they are stupid, nothing to do with their gay-ness.

370. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187556 by Frankus1122 on June 2, 2008 at 10:01 am

I can sometimes even distinguish between Braque and Picasso in his cubist period.

Now that's just showing off.

Yes, that was showing off. But I said
sometimes and it is usually just a lucky guess.

I misread your number one, I thought you liked the magic realists. I've read and reread the books I have many times. I like the fact that I don't get everything on first or second or third read. I discover some new connection each time I go back to a work.
Now in an attempt to make this somewhat on point, you could say that scientists looking at fossil evidence discover new connections after repeated analysis. TX seems to think that scientists are locked into a mode of thinking that filters and shapes what they see. He is right to an extent. However, the scientist confronted with new evidence looks for the best solution - the picture that makes the best sense in light of all other evidence. TX cannot say the same of his creationist views. His book has been written once and for all. Every new piece of evidence has to be wedged into that pre-existing mold. The results are not pretty. (Look at wacky Flood theories regarding the fossil record).
Scientists rewrite their books as new evidence is presented.

371. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187492 by Frankus1122 on June 2, 2008 at 8:35 am

From Keith:

7. I would also like a round entitled 'Guess the Painter!' in which you are shown a painting and you have to name the artist...

I like this category. We could go up against clearwooter (Leonardo = MONA LISA). I can sometimes even distinguish between Braque and Picasso in his cubist period.
I also like number one; Borges being one of my favourite authors.
In short, keep up the good work!

372. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186499 by Frankus1122 on May 30, 2008 at 11:18 am

To have the real ten commandemtns, someone would have to find the ark of the covenant.

Hasn't this already been done? Wasn't it the second movie? Do we want to put the original on display? From what I remember it is a rather dangerous thing. Didn't some Nazi gets their faces melted or something when they looked at it?
You don't want everyone's face to melt. That's icky.

I'd leave it alone.

373. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186408 by Frankus1122 on May 30, 2008 at 8:58 am

The "In God We Trust" thing bothers me. I am not an American. If I were I would question someone (?)as to why our motto was "In God We Trust" when we are supposed to have a separation of church and State. If the motto of our nation mentions God and further states that we "trust" him, then how can we claim that religion is not a part of our national fabric?
Perhaps I should whisper-type this as it seems like a good route for the religious types to take to prove the nation is indeed a theocracy.
How can the motto of the country exclude my atheist beliefs? I do not trust in God. I do not believe God exists, and yet my nation proclaims for me to the world that I, as a citizen, trust in him.
I'd be angry if I were an American.
As a Canadian I have a hard time with our national anthem which implores "God keep our land glorious and free." I ususally substitute the words "Great Imaginary Being in the Sky" for 'God' whenever I sing the anthem. Although that tends to mess up the rhythm.

374. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186342 by Frankus1122 on May 30, 2008 at 7:34 am

Seems like an attempt to sneak religion into the public sphere. It is the thin edge of the wedge, just as ID is the Wedge for sneaking relion into the classroom.

On the other hand, if its purpose is purely historical I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is that it would be used as a tool to shape future decisions.

375. 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas

Comment #185848 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm

From Quine:

Perhaps we could find a university statistics department who would be interested in doing a comprehensive survey of what the public knows, does not know and actually thinks is true about all of this. If we had that data we would know the specific points that need to be addressed to move the public understanding of science along by the most targeted application of resources.

This is a great idea. Get statistics. Use evidence to focus education.

From Border Collie:

Does anyone know how to make RealPlayer not time out every 2-3 minutes?

As chuckgoecke intimated: get a Mac.

From leviticus:

I hate how this thing logs you out if you take to long to post your comment f***** annoying, and something that should be addressed elsewhere is suppose.

Get in the habit of doing a quick Select All and Copy before you hit send. It works well for me. Unless of course I post something very long and uniquely insightful. Then I forget:(

376. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185825 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 5:51 pm

I think we can go too far in our condemnation of the Human Rights Commission.
It is not a body set up only to hear complaints about hate speech. If someone decides not to hire me for a job for which I am well qualified because I am gay or disabled in some way, I could take my complaint to the HRC. The ability of the HRC to help people discriminated against in this way is of benefit to our society.

377. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185823 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Naturalist1 said:

Enjoy

Thank you. I did enjoy this very much.
You have to love the Rex.

378. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185664 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 9:29 am

Al said;

As if Canada needed any more bad publicity, they are already Canadian

If you said this in Canada I would take you to the Human Rights Commission so fast your head would spin.

Sounds like jealousy to me.

379. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185649 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 9:04 am

I watched this as it happened on TVO. It was sad for the accusers. It looked like Amateur Hour. These guys had the most insipid 'arguments'.

What really bothers me is that it seems as though we will not be able to speak truths because they offend.

380. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185593 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 6:51 am

Christopher Davis:

They forget that the greatest evil of racism is that it fails to recognize people as individuals.

It is a difficult line to walk. Statistically certain groups of people have particular traits. Steven Pinker talks about this rather well in The Blank Slate.
It gets messy when we try to determine why certain people are the way they are. Is it genetic? environmental? cultural? a combination of all of these factors? Because I can be defined as belonging to a certain group does that mean I am not to be treated as an individual? Are there dangers in not treating me as a member of a particular group, if members of that group tend to act in dangerous ways?

As I understand it you are in Afghanistan. How do you tell if someone is part of the Taliban? Are there certain characteristics that Taliban seem to share that you use as a guide? Are there people who are not Taliban that also share these characteristics?

I see humans as pattern seekers. Racism is a result of this. We can't treat every thing we encounter as wholly unique. We just can't. This leads to errors on occasion.

I don't think I am saying anything relavatory here. And I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the original topic of this thread. But trying to bring it back to the quote that started this off: yes it is evil to fail to recognize indivduals as such, but is it always possible?

381. What is science for?

Comment #185416 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Good one Mr. Wong!

382. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185312 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Like I said, banning guns in D.C. caused violent crime to sky rocket.

Banning guns is not the same as getting rid of guns. Presumably all the law abiding citizens gave up their weapons while all the criminals kept theirs.
Our mayor wants to ban handguns in the city. I don't think it will reduce gun crime at all for the reasons stated above. If handguns were eliminated from the city it would be a different story.

Our city is fairly handgun crime free. Not entirely and there has been an increase lately. I think it has to do with culture and what is deemed as acceptable. What you and MaxD were talking about is a huge factor. There is a gangsta mentality that is becoming more popular with certain groups in society. Again I think it has more to do with socio-economic status than it does with race.

I have to pull a number 10 now. See ya.

383. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185299 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 11:38 am

Al,
The stats I referred to were comparing Canada and USA. By extention of your logic Canada shopuld be negatively influenced by the USA as the USA is by Mexico.

Banning guns does not, of course, get rid of the guns that are already there. However, if you have a culture where gun violence is so prevalent (unlike Switzerland) and access to guns (legal or not) then you have the problems you have.
All I am saying is that guns are a part of the problem the US has with gun violence. I don't have a solution but I think to say that guns are not part of the problem is incorrect. Eliminating the prevalence of gun ownership would be a partial solution.

384. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185278 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 10:59 am

Can one ask the question:
Do they kill because they are black? Or do they kill because they are poor? Are they poor because they are black?

I don't think that you can say that guns are not part of the problem.

The US gun death rates are far higher than other industrialized countries, and among the highest
recorded in the world. 2005 statistics indicate that the US had 10,100 gun homicides compared to
222 in Canada. While Canada and the US have comparable rates of homicides without guns
(1.79 vs. 1.35 per 100 000), the US firearm homicide rate is 5 times Canada's (3.8 vs. 0.69 per
100 000) and the US handgun homicide rate is 7 times Canada's (2.83 vs. 0.39 per 100 000).
The US also has 5.8 times the rates per 100,000 of robberies committed with firearms even
though rates of robberies without guns are comparable.

Taken from here:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/GlobalGunEpidemicRev07.pdf

385. What is science for?

Comment #185253 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

Are you being intentionally dense?

Tyler Durden,
One could ask the same question of you.
To whom are you asking this question?
Think about it man! :)

Clearwoot has been designed to be as he is. So yes, there is an intention behind all that he does. The alternative is that he has accidentally or randomly or by chance stumbled upon his unique brand of LOGIC. And that is not allowed according to ID.

386. What is science for?

Comment #185250 by Frankus1122 on May 27, 2008 at 9:07 am

clearwooter has solved the ID problem once and for ALL and now we move on to the important matters of 'bad' language. Never swear to god. He will send you to H - E - double hockey sticks.

387. A Tribute to Douglas Adams: Towel Day May 25th

Comment #184590 by Frankus1122 on May 25, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I took my towel to a BBQ party today. It came in handy in that I forgot my hat and the sun was shining, so it served as a head covering. It got a bit hot under the towel so my head got a bit sweaty. Luckily I had a towel to mop my brow. It also came in handy when the children decided to stop inhaling the helium from the balloons and fill them with water instead. My Adams towel served to dry me off after I was hit with a water balloon.
I never imagined that a towel could actually be as useful as that.
Thanks!

388. What is science for?

Comment #184563 by Frankus1122 on May 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Comment #184553 by GordonYKWong

Yes, I couldn't AGREE more. You are on the clearWOOT train.

Comment #184552 by blake121666 on May 25, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Hey, I just made a very large posting and it hasn't shown up. I'll get around to doing it again if it hasn't shown up by tomorrow night.

You've lost it. You get logged out after 5 (?) minutes. Long posts that take longer than that to create are often lost in this way.
I am now in the habit of 'selecting all (Ctl A) and copying (Ctl C) before I hit send.

389. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184430 by Frankus1122 on May 25, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #184348 by bachfiend

Thanks! That gave me a good belly laugh and brought back fond memories of my elementary school lunch hour. I ate nothing but peanut butter and honey sandwiches for 3 years while watching the Flintstones at lunch.

The Simpsons is a smart show. Flanders is not anything but a device to poke fun at religious types.

390. What is science for?

Comment #184259 by Frankus1122 on May 24, 2008 at 8:10 am

MaxD,
You are asking the same question as you would an IDer.
IDers deny that Darwinian Evolution is the explanation for how things came to be what they are. They just don't believe it. So they invent an alternate explanation. They have no explanation for the mechanism by which things came to be other than 'goddidit', just as H-Deniers have no mechanism to explain the Holocaust other than' Jewsdidit'.
They are both deniers of the explanations that do provide mechanisms for how things came to be, and neither provides a mechanism of their own.

391. What is science for?

Comment #184250 by Frankus1122 on May 24, 2008 at 6:53 am

AllanW,

Thanks, but I am still not entirely clear.
He said:

a naked fear of what the Jews may do to you

in the context of those who deny the Holocaust.

The "naked fear of what the Jews may do" is what apparently prevents serious historians from exposing the 'truth' about the Holocaust.
ASM has exposed the 'truth' and now he is apparently hiding out in Mexico because of "what the Jews may do."
It doesn't really explain what his motivation is. He indicated a "love of truth" was what drove him (and presumably David Irving, David Duke, Israel Shamer, Ernst Zundel, etc.) to the conclusion that the Holocaust is a big hoax.
Okay. Let's say it is true that the Holocaust is a big hoax. Now what? Should we turn all of Israel over to the Palestinians? The Jews were capable of creating this massive hoax on the world once, what's to prevent them from doing it again? We need a solution to this Jewish problem.
Am I on the right track here ASM?

Just as the creationist 'science' is based on the belief that goddidit, it seems that the 'Holocaust hoax truth' is based on the belief that jewsdidit.
The two camps are the same in that their 'evidence' is seen through the filter of preconception. However, there is another difference. Whereas the creationists are motivated by a love of God, the deniers are motivated by a hatred of Jews. The former are merely wrong, the latter are wrong and evil.

392. What is science for?

Comment #184243 by Frankus1122 on May 24, 2008 at 5:47 am

ASM,

You have convinced me.
The Holocaust is the biggest hoax in history.

Now what?

What is the next step? Is it just a case of having the 'truth' be known? Or is there a further motivation?
We now know that the Jews have created a fantastic hoax on the world. So what? What do we do about this?

I am trying to understand where the obsession has its roots. I think I know, but I am wondering if you truly have the honesty to make plain.

393. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184178 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Dr. William Parker, a professor of Surgery at Duke University, and his colleagues, think they've discovered why we have an appendix. In their studies of benign gut bacteria, they've found curious biofilms and concentrations of "good" bacteria in and around the appendix. These bacteria aid in digestion throughout the gut. Dr. Parker suspects that the appendix is a kind of "safe house" for these bacteria, where they can hide during episodes of diarrhea that flush the gut clean, and then move out to re-colonize the gut when the coast is clear. Ironically, he thinks that due to modern medicine, which makes diseases like cholera and dysentery uncommon, the appendix is under-stimulated and occasionally overreacts, causing appendicitis.

I heard this on Quirks and Quarks

394. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #184176 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Max,
You read the article here and commented upon it.

Here is the section that got me thinking:

Most primates have wisdom teeth (the third molars) but a few species, including marmosets and tamarins, have none. "These are probably evolutionary dwarfs," says anthropologist Peter Lucas of George Washington University, Washington DC. He suggests that when the body size of mammals reduces rapidly their jaws become too small to house all their teeth, and overcrowding eventually results in selection for fewer or smaller teeth (International Congress Series, vol 1296, p 74). This seems to be happening in Homo sapiens.

Robert Corruccini of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, says the problem of overcrowding has been exacerbated in humans in the past four centuries as our diet has become softer and more processed. With less wear on molars, jaw space is at an even higher premium, "so the third molars, the last teeth to erupt, run out of space to erupt", he says. Not only are impacted wisdom teeth becoming more common, perhaps as many as 35% of people have no wisdom teeth at all, suggesting that we may be on an evolutionary trajectory to losing them altogether.

It is that last bolded section that has me wondering how this can happen.

395. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #184169 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Calilasseia,

If you are still around could you explain how/why the human jaw is getting smaller and some people are not developing wisdom teeth?
I asked this question elsewhere and I think I sort of have an answer but I am not sure and you seem to know what you are talking about on matters such as this.
I know our diets have changed and we no longer require big massive jaws with lots of teeth, but from where does the selection pressure come? Our genes don't 'know' we no longer need extra teeth and smaller jaws so how is this selected for?

396. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184164 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Comment #184153 by mordacious1

And what about parts of the world where there isn't access to dentists, are wisdom-toothless people higher than 35% because those with them died off or are not as attractive?

Actually the article I referred to said that about 99.8 percent of Bantu speaking people have wisdom teeth while no Mexican Indians do. I don't think dentistry has had any effect yet.
But I have wondered the same thing about eye-glasses. Certainly there would be selection pressure on people who couldn't see clearly.
However, from what I read (and learned from posters on this site) it seems as though genes are not as specific as we sometimes think. They can express themselves in various way depending on other genes and environmental factors. They also have many purposes. Poor eyesight or fewer teeth may be the result of some other selection factor.
It is a complicated process.

397. What is science for?

Comment #184157 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Al said:

If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos?

I love it when people think like I do.

As is the case with that those who try to promote 'Intelligent Design' and claim that the 'Designer' (capitalized) could be anything at all -not necessarily God, the real truth is in the motivation. They will claim that they are motivated by freedom of intellectual thought. They claim that there are alternate views on the evidence which make more sense; that point to an 'Intelligent Designer'. It could be an alien they claim.
But we know that is not the truth.
They have an ulterior motive. The Intelligent Designer is none other than Bible-God.
I had this discussion over 25 years ago with a creationist who was arguing that 'creation science' should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. He brought out all sorts of alternate explanations for things like the fossil record. The main thrust of his argument was the 'science' behind the creationist world view.
In the end I asked what was his goal; what was his motivation?
He believed in Bible-God and wanted the Good News spread on campus.
It wasn't about science, it was about god.
I cannot believe (argument from personal incredulity) that ASM's motivation is 'historical accuracy'.
He hates Jews just as surely as the Intelligent Design/creationist loves god.
That's the motivation.

398. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184146 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Thanks jo5ef.
I did a bit of poking around and it seems you are perhaps partially correct. There seems to be a lot more involved if I understand this article correctly:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1458632

Which I am not sure I do entirely. I ain't no scientist but I think I got the gist of the paper.

Here is a relevant excerpt:

A reduced number of molars may be advantageous from a human evolutionary perspective. Because of the dramatic lifestyle and diet shift experienced since the discovery of fire and the development of cooking utensils, third molars, which could have been essential for the survival of earlier hominids, became not only functionless but also an important cause of morbidity for modern humans (54). Dental arches have been reduced over hominid evolution (2â€"4, 56). As a result, third molars became frequently impacted or malpositioned, preventing the teeth from attaining a functional position. Furthermore, because of the difficulty of cleaning them and keeping them free of disease, impacted or malpositioned third molars lead to a higher susceptibility to periodontal disease, such as infections, carious lesions, cysts, tumors, and destruction of adjacent teeth and bone

399. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184080 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Thank you Almighty Quetzacoatl.
Now further demonstrate your omniscience and answer my question on the other thread.

400. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184079 by Frankus1122 on May 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Okay. I will try again:

Can someone answer my question here:

CLICK HERE