Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2012, 01:51 PM   #1704804  /  #26
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gila Guerilla View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

They go in opposite directions. Microevolution improves the EXISTING taxon to successfully operate in its environment. It MAINTAINS the taxon. Macroevolution changes the taxon into a different taxon. It does not improve the existing taxon to succeed in its environment. Quite the opposite.
Think about it.
Your whole idea of "evolution" is misguided. But you are not alone. People do not even think about this in a practical way.
You didn't answer the question:

What is to prevent the micro changes from accumulating over time into macro ones?

Why can't small changes that accumulate over time morph one taxon into another? . . .
All you need is for two populations of one species to be in isolation from one another long enough for the lack of interbreeding to allow accumulated micro steps to add up to a macro result, differing in each population. The two populations may drift apart enough, genetically, to be incapable of interbreeding if re-united, or the mere fact of the ongoing isolation could be enough for accumulated changes to make interbreeding impossible - for example sexual preferences for courtship could go out of wack - critters from a common stock, though genetically capable of interbreeding may simply refuse to do so, due to divergent micro evolutionary steps. Lady critters can be fussy about 'who' they'll mate with.

I can't see anything impossible about this. Ring species* illustrate divergence in ability to interbreed. Forced separation into two geographical locations can lead two populations from common stock, to end up in differing environments promoting changes in the now geographically separated pre-EXISTING taxons to successfully operate in their new environments, environments which could also change radically over long periods of time. This does not strike me as not thinking about it in a "practical way".

Once there's such a fork in the taxonomical tree branch, huge changes can occur - like getting a mouse and an elephant from a common ancestor.

* If you don't know what ring species are, go look it up ~ and understand what it tells you.
At the fork the subgroup diverges. What happens to the original group. Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 02:07 PM   #1704817  /  #27
nygreenguy
Sporophyte
 
nygreenguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 3,546
nygreenguy
Send a message via AIM to nygreenguy Send a message via Yahoo to nygreenguy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.
nygreenguy is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 02:35 PM   #1704830  /  #28
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
__________________

Last edited by Socrates; 02-13-2012 at 02:38 PM.
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 02:44 PM   #1704836  /  #29
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,525
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gila Guerilla View Post
Once there's such a fork in the taxonomical tree branch, huge changes can occur - like getting a mouse and an elephant from a common ancestor.

* If you don't know what ring species are, go look it up ~ and understand what it tells you.
At the fork the subgroup diverges. What happens to the original group. Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
Strawman spotted.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 02:48 PM   #1704839  /  #30
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
...

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
Can you explain why, please, you're so obsessed with terminology, and seemingly oblivious to the underlying reality that terminology is supposed to approximate?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 02:56 PM   #1704841  /  #31
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,137
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
the original group commits suicide. and so should you.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 03:02 PM   #1704848  /  #32
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gila Guerilla View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

They go in opposite directions. Microevolution improves the EXISTING taxon to successfully operate in its environment. It MAINTAINS the taxon. Macroevolution changes the taxon into a different taxon. It does not improve the existing taxon to succeed in its environment. Quite the opposite.
Think about it.
Your whole idea of "evolution" is misguided. But you are not alone. People do not even think about this in a practical way.
You didn't answer the question:

What is to prevent the micro changes from accumulating over time into macro ones?

Why can't small changes that accumulate over time morph one taxon into another? . . .
All you need is for two populations of one species to be in isolation from one another long enough for the lack of interbreeding to allow accumulated micro steps to add up to a macro result, differing in each population. The two populations may drift apart enough, genetically, to be incapable of interbreeding if re-united, or the mere fact of the ongoing isolation could be enough for accumulated changes to make interbreeding impossible - for example sexual preferences for courtship could go out of wack - critters from a common stock, though genetically capable of interbreeding may simply refuse to do so, due to divergent micro evolutionary steps. Lady critters can be fussy about 'who' they'll mate with.

I can't see anything impossible about this. Ring species* illustrate divergence in ability to interbreed. Forced separation into two geographical locations can lead two populations from common stock, to end up in differing environments promoting changes in the now geographically separated pre-EXISTING taxons to successfully operate in their new environments, environments which could also change radically over long periods of time. This does not strike me as not thinking about it in a "practical way".

Once there's such a fork in the taxonomical tree branch, huge changes can occur - like getting a mouse and an elephant from a common ancestor.

* If you don't know what ring species are, go look it up ~ and understand what it tells you.
Can you give a few actual examples from the fossil record? Please include the taxa names. That would be great.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 03:11 PM   #1704854  /  #33
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 03:20 PM   #1704865  /  #34
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
...
If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon.
Says who?
There's genetic divergence between me and my brother.
There's genetic divergence between me and my cousin.
There's genetic divergence between me and an Inuit.
There's genetic divergence between me and a Neanderthal.
So... ?
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 03:28 PM   #1704873  /  #35
Monad
Rabbit in your headlights
Mod: LSD, Phys Sci
 
Monad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,732
Monad
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gila Guerilla View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

They go in opposite directions. Microevolution improves the EXISTING taxon to successfully operate in its environment. It MAINTAINS the taxon. Macroevolution changes the taxon into a different taxon. It does not improve the existing taxon to succeed in its environment. Quite the opposite.
Think about it.
Your whole idea of "evolution" is misguided. But you are not alone. People do not even think about this in a practical way.
You didn't answer the question:

What is to prevent the micro changes from accumulating over time into macro ones?

Why can't small changes that accumulate over time morph one taxon into another? . . .
All you need is for two populations of one species to be in isolation from one another long enough for the lack of interbreeding to allow accumulated micro steps to add up to a macro result, differing in each population. The two populations may drift apart enough, genetically, to be incapable of interbreeding if re-united, or the mere fact of the ongoing isolation could be enough for accumulated changes to make interbreeding impossible - for example sexual preferences for courtship could go out of wack - critters from a common stock, though genetically capable of interbreeding may simply refuse to do so, due to divergent micro evolutionary steps. Lady critters can be fussy about 'who' they'll mate with.

I can't see anything impossible about this. Ring species* illustrate divergence in ability to interbreed. Forced separation into two geographical locations can lead two populations from common stock, to end up in differing environments promoting changes in the now geographically separated pre-EXISTING taxons to successfully operate in their new environments, environments which could also change radically over long periods of time. This does not strike me as not thinking about it in a "practical way".

Once there's such a fork in the taxonomical tree branch, huge changes can occur - like getting a mouse and an elephant from a common ancestor.

* If you don't know what ring species are, go look it up ~ and understand what it tells you.
Can you give a few actual examples from the fossil record?
lol
Monad is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 07:02 PM   #1706225  /  #36
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 07:04 PM   #1706230  /  #37
madmardigan
I can handle this Eurotrash
 
madmardigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: nakatomi plaza
Posts: 10,016
madmardigan
Default

Why does red smell like cheese?
__________________
madmardigan is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 07:18 PM   #1706249  /  #38
VoxRat
Senior Member
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799
VoxRat has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
...
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
That's because "people" have just not achieved your exalted state of enlightenment.

Forgive them, "Socrates", for they know not what they do.
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 08:46 PM   #1706359  /  #39
Anytus
Senior Member
 
Anytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,507
Anytus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
I've seen many people answer this question many times over the years.
You never address those answers.
If you would like to be more that a source of entertainment and a target of ridicule, addressing the answers would be a nice start.
What would really raise your credibility is when you would give some indication that you understand the answers.
If you also managed to explain why you believe the answers are inadequate or wrong your credibility might even approach zero.
Anytus is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 08:56 PM   #1706376  /  #40
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anytus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
I've seen many people answer this question many times over the years.
You never address those answers.
If you would like to be more that a source of entertainment and a target of ridicule, addressing the answers would be a nice start.
What would really raise your credibility is when you would give some indication that you understand the answers.
If you also managed to explain why you believe the answers are inadequate or wrong your credibility might even approach zero.
It looks like Anytus is unwilling or unable to answer this simple question.
Anyone else?
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 09:26 PM   #1706442  /  #41
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
Here is a scenario. A taxon is living in a particular environment.
It happens that a subgroup of that group makes it to a different area with a different environment and loses contact with the original group. Over time the subgroup in the different environment evolves into a different taxon.
All well and good.
Now let's turn back to the rest of the original group who are still in the original environment. Have they necessarily evolved into a different taxon? If so, why?
__________________

Last edited by Socrates; 02-13-2012 at 09:28 PM.
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 09:30 PM   #1706453  /  #42
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,137
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

hey, anyone know why Socrates persists in asking retarded questions?
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 09:48 PM   #1706483  /  #43
Anytus
Senior Member
 
Anytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,507
Anytus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
Here is a scenario. A taxon is living in a particular environment.
It happens that a subgroup of that group makes it to a different area with a different environment and loses contact with the original group. Over time the subgroup in the different environment evolves into a different taxon.
All well and good.
Now let's turn back to the rest of the original group who are still in the original environment. Have they necessarily evolved into a different taxon? If so, why?
This has been answered many times, you need to address the answers you were given.
Anytus is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 10:28 PM   #1706540  /  #44
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

No takers.
But lots of excuses.
Oh well.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Old 02-13-2012, 10:30 PM   #1706544  /  #45
damitall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,783
damitall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
hey, anyone know why Socrates persists in asking retarded questions?
Sir, sir, I know, I know, please sir!

It's because he cannot learn anything, isn't it sir

Do I get to grope the games mistress now?
damitall is offline   topbottom
Old 02-14-2012, 03:05 AM   #1706819  /  #46
MrFungus420
Senior Member
 
MrFungus420's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Midland, MI
Posts: 2,960
MrFungus420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
What problem? It is simple.

As the original group continues to evolve and change, then it will eventually become a different taxon.

If the original group goes extinct, then it does not become a different taxon.

What is so difficult about this? If you take ANY group and if it changes enough, it will become a different taxon. That applies whether it is a sub-group, the "original" group or an isolated group. It applies to ANY group.
__________________
We are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees and our religious beliefs show that..
- Christopher Hitchens
MrFungus420 is offline   topbottom
Old 02-14-2012, 09:16 AM   #1707002  /  #47
Anytus
Senior Member
 
Anytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,507
Anytus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
No takers.
But lots of excuses.
Oh well.
Explain why you don't like the answers you got.
Anytus is offline   topbottom
Old 02-14-2012, 09:35 AM   #1707003  /  #48
MaxEntropy
self-banned
 
MaxEntropy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 395
MaxEntropy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nygreenguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post

At the fork the subgroup diverges.
Why is it considered a subgroup and not a new group? What makes a group a group?


Quote:
What happens to the original group.
It depends.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that at the time the subgroup diverges the original group becomes a different taxon?
When you say "diverges" do you mean geographically or genetically? If it is just a geographic separation then nothing changes. If it is a genetic divergence then by definition they become a different taxon.

If it is a genetic divergence, then the subgroup becomes a different taxon. My question (one of them) is - does the original group become a different taxon? If you say it does, can you explain why please.
It always seems that people have a problem with this simple question.
Here is a scenario. A taxon is living in a particular environment.
It happens that a subgroup of that group makes it to a different area with a different environment and loses contact with the original group. Over time the subgroup in the different environment evolves into a different taxon.
All well and good.
Now let's turn back to the rest of the original group who are still in the original environment. Have they necessarily evolved into a different taxon? If so, why?
There is no original environment sockie, because environments change over time. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little. Ocean environments for example, tend to have less perturbations than land environments. This is because big bits of water can buffer stuff like temperature.

So the game of life is about organisms chasing that ever changing fitness landscape. Plus there is genetic drift, so evolution still occurs in environments where there is not much in the way of change. Also, remember that "environment" means both physical and biotic. Of course, all species fail eventually, and go extinct, because predictive adaptation can only do so much in the face of predictable change [day-night etc], and can only use bet-hedging for the stochastic changes. So no species lasts for ever, and yet life itself can last billions of years, because most environments are exploitable. [On Earth].

[And why did I waste my time? ]

MaxEntropy is offline   topbottom
Old 02-14-2012, 10:50 AM   #1707011  /  #49
Fenrir
ruff
 
Fenrir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 1,138
Fenrir
Default

If Europeans settled America and became Americans, why are there still Europeans?
Fenrir is online now   topbottom
Old 02-14-2012, 01:23 PM   #1707051  /  #50
Socrates
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 31,880
Socrates has disabled comments
Default

I don't respond to posters who can't even make the effort to call me by the name I use here, which is Socrates. I never corrupt the names of others here.
__________________
Socrates is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
armchair wibble, proven shameless liar

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org