Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Many of these links, they provide evidence that organisms have changed over time (primarily fossil record evidence). This would be evidence against creationism (a god made creatures static, as is).

But I don't think that's what people here were arguing. The arguments were the source of the change over time, is it mutation driven selection, or did some intelligent agent meddle in the process (whatever that agent may be). The video I posted, for example, shows the giraffe's laryngeal nerve getting super long, when it it is possible that it could only have to traverse a short distance if an intelligent agent was involved. This is a result that would be expected from a process that can only work with what it has available, such as neo-darwinism.

Fossils changing over time, it seems everyone here has agreed with that so far.

I believe to fully understand the position of certain members perspective on this specific topic  it is necessary to understand how and why they view reality. I am very familiar with the original poster's position on reality he chose the title thoughtfully. The title's pedigree so to speak implies Darwin was an addle brained man whom concocted nothing more than an idea that has holes in it like Swiss cheese.

I believe to fully understand the position of certain members perspective on this specific topic  it is necessary to understand how and why they view reality. I am very familiar with the original poster's position on reality he chose the title thoughtfully. The title's pedigree so to speak implies Darwin was an addle brained man whom concocted nothing more than an idea that has holes in it like Swiss cheese.

So is the original poster of this thread the same guy who made the blog post (the title is from the blog post).  

Otherwise, the title was not the choice of OP, perse. I guess you could say that he chose the article. It was interesting, apart from the casual racism.

So is the original poster of this thread the same guy who made the blog post (the title is from the blog post).  

Otherwise, the title was not the choice of OP, perse. I guess you could say that he chose the article. It was interesting, apart from the casual racism.

I was the OP and I linked to an article, using the title of the article for the title of this thread. I don't need to agree with the man's politics (and I don't) to find some agreement with what he has to say on this subject. By the way, there are people on this forum with whom I agree on Psi related matters but am diametrically opposed to their political views. Likewise, I find myself in agreement with some of the sceptics here when they express their political opinions.

I was the OP and I linked to an article, using the title of the article for the title of this thread. I don't need to agree with the man's politics (and I don't) to find some agreement with what he has to say on this subject. By the way, there are people on this forum with whom I agree on Psi related matters but am diametrically opposed to their political views. Likewise, I find myself in agreement with some of the sceptics here when they express their political opinions.

Fair enough. The article was interesting, and worth the time taken to read. And yeah, everyone having the same opinions on everything would be boring indeed.

Gotcha, but the tags don't appear when I hit reply to someone's post. I can do the tags manually though, as now edited. Thanks for the tip, and glad to contribute.

The editor tries to be WYSIWYG but that's not really useful when editing.

I copy the text to my text editor, edit it there, and then paste it back in the reply box.

~~ Paul

No - the tags don't appear automatically. If you want to see them, use the "View Source" button at the end of the toolbar.

Well, look at that. As usual, one word is worth 1000 icons.

But why doesn't your entire post appear when I reply to it? The stuff inside [code], for example, is missing.

~~ Paul

[Laird]

But why doesn't your entire post appear when I reply to it? The stuff inside [code], for example, is missing.

We've enabled an option so that quotes (i.e. "quote" tags and that which they enclose) are not themselves included in the quoted text generated when clicking "reply". It just so happened that the content of Kamarling's "code" tag was itself a "quote" tag - which, I guess, MyBB strips out along with all of the other quote tags, as per the option we enabled (we enabled it by request - people got sick of having to manually strip out earlier quotes when composing replies).

We've enabled an option so that quotes (i.e. "quote" tags and that which they enclose) are not themselves included in the quoted text generated when clicking "reply". It just so happened that the content of Kamarling's "code" tag was itself a "quote" tag - which, I guess, MyBB strips out along with all of the other quote tags, as per the option we enabled (we enabled it by request - people got sick of having to manually strip out earlier quotes when composing replies).

Any way to treat [code] tags differently from [quote] tags?

~~ Paul

[Laird]

Any way to treat "code" tags differently from "quote" tags?

[I edited the above quote of your post to replace open and close square brackets with double-quote marks so as to avoid formatting issues]

You mean, so that "quote" tags aren't stripped out when they are within "code" tags?

I doubt there's a custom setting for this, but of course the MyBB source code could be extended or hacked to make it so - personally, I don't have the motivation to do this, but if you or anybody else does then feel free to send me the patch.

The RLN is also present in other animals, you know... Like us. The idea that it's route is any more inefficient in giraffes because it's more pronounced (or long) is just odd, we don't get a "better" positioning despite it being shorter.