Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

'All the time'? Why should new species be popping up all the time?

And who is to say they have not been? You assume that we know of every species on the planet, and are tracking them, and can see when a new one emerges. But I think new species are found 'all the time' as you say. Could some of those be from evolutionary changes that have occurred during humanity's span on earth, rather than species that were around but we hadn't yet discovered?

As to the similarity of some species to their relatives in the distant past, we've been over this before. There is no reason all species must undergo any particular rate of changes.

Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.

Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population. What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.

So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.

If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?

We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.

(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
my money is on new species.
besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.

Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

 

[Hollie]

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.

Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.

The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.

If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong,all organisms experience mutations and by theory that is how evolution happens. It's not my theory, it is yours I can't help it you can't show macro evolution in any group of organisms.

Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population. What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.

So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.

If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.

Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.

It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know these newly discovered organisms have not been here all along ?

We are talking macro evolution not discovering organisms that have always been here.

(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
my money is on new species.
besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.

Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just because all species experience mutations, that doesn't mean those mutations are spread throughout the population. What you either don't understand or refuse to accept is that evolution does not say that all mutations are going to be spread.

So no, it is not wrong based on your answer.

If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.

Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.

It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.

No hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

(cue buzzer) thanks for playing. since you have no evidence to the contary.
my money is on new species.
besides you're making a a false assumtion when you assume they've always been here.

Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.

Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.

 

[Hollie]

If you truly understood how many beneficial mutations it took for every stage of of evolution you wouldn't believe this nonsense.

Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.

It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.

No hollie.

You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.

 

[Hollie]

Well my money is on they existed for a very long time. Remember the coelacanth supposedly went extinct around 70 million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.

Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.

I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yous is a typical nonsense argument promoted by Christian fundies. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal.

It's an embarassing admission on your part of being a shill for the fundie creationist crowd which is utterly deficient in even the basic principles of biology.

No hollie.

You have offered only boilerplate dogma from creationist websites to support your claims.

The bible is not asking the questions I am, a rational person of science. Not someone with a vivid imagination. The problem is you don't have a clue on how to respond.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.

Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.

I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.

I am actually trying to wake you out of your ignorance. I'm trying to help you hollie and the others here. Some will continue to be driven by pride.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The coelacanth could not possibly have faced extinction around 70 million years ago with the fact of a 6,000 year old earth.

Hollie I agree,but that was your side that made the claim. Ultimatelreality believes in ID and he might disagree with you.

I can only hope that if there are gods that they will protect me from people like you and the happy-fun name caller who has promised repeatedly to put me on ignore but continues to lie about doing so.

Hollie if, that means it is possible that they exist .That is a start there are gods, angels and satan have been referenced as gods,but there is only one true God Almighty the creator of the heavens and the earth and everything on the earth.

 

[UltimateReality]

Man and an early ape-like creature shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions.

Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.

Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.

The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.

If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.

As usual, no logical rebuttal, only Ad Hollymen attacks.

 

[Hollie]

Hollymen, you are braindead, you and the rest of the fools that like to play word games with no real evidence. You state this like it was fact. But show me the fossil!!! Show me the hominid that apes and humans descended from!! I guarantee he was a knuckle dragger with small brain and thick brow bone so nice try with your trickery. It is a baseless, unscientifically proven claim and you of all people should no better than to quote such hogwash here.

Your usual tactic of name-calling as a means to defend your claims to "the gods did it" doesn't refute the scientific evidence for common ancestry and common descent.

The scientific record is not in doubt. The charlatans at the ICR will try and prevent you from studying the scientific evidence because they have a need to present bible literalism and a 6,000 year old earth.

If you choose to be gullible and to remain ignorant, that, of course, is your choice but don't pretend your ignorance needs to be foisted on others.

As usual, no logical rebuttal, only Ad Hollymen attacks.

Don't let being befuddled cause you such angst.

 

[newpolitics]

So tell me why. Show me some scientific evidence, not conjecture, on why we don't find inbetweeners. The smart scientists know there is no way in heck they can prove Darwin's gradualism with the fossil record. That is why they have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Unfortunately, they still have to call PE Neo-Darwinism for fear of being run out of their respective institutions. [Expelled]

As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism, but rather claims that the gradualism is not a constant rate. Remember that we are talking about huge time periods, so that changes over 100,000 years can still be considered 'fast'.

The reason the half hybrids I get the impression YWC expects aren't found would be because they are NOT part of evolutionary theory. Changes aren't supposed to be a fish giving birth to a bird, nor a fish giving birth to a creature with a fish's head and a bird's body.

You can easily search for examples of transitional fossils. Here's a site, aptly named :
(A few) transitional fossils\

There may not be transitional fossils (or species) of the type you want to see, but that doesn't invalidate what does exist. As to transitional species, every species currently in existence may be a transition species; in a million years they may have all evolved into very different forms.

Not likely to happen in the human race. The larger the population, the less likely a mutation is take hold. That is, if we could find a mutation that was additive and not destructive.

Did you ever wonder the evolutionary reason why women don't have facial hair? [well, that is, except for Hollymen]

What larger population are you talking about? Urban dwelling didn't start until the domestication of animals ten thousand years ago. Before that, we were hunter gatherers, living in small groups sized 30 to 150. Before cro-magnon man, there would not have been large populations either, as it would have been unsustainable without a large enough food source, hence smaller groups are easier to sustain (without animal domestication), so I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Therefore, any mutations would not have become too diluted, besides, as long as we're speculating, I would say that if an advantageous mutation did come along that was truly helpful, that individual would be considered extremely sexually attractive and would have no problem passing on his/her genes, and neither would their children, and neither would their children, and so on... there is no reason to believe a mutation would be distributed evenly throughout a population. Like those with money, those with an advantageous genome would want to keep it in close quarters and only among a small group until it became more robust. There are a few theories regarding how a mutation would distribute throughout a population, and they don't all include a homogenous distribution as you mentioned.

As for women not having facial hair... simple, it is sexual selection. Given that there isn't too much sexual dimorphism in the human race, If men found it more attractive for women to have less hair, it wouldn't take long for the hairless female face to be selected for strongly, and female facial hair to be extinguished as a trait rapidly. I am merely speculating, but this seems highly plausible. I don't see the point in actually researching this, because, I am not the one that doubts evolution. Also, No matter what I come back with, you will find some ridiculous way to dismiss.

 

[newpolitics]

Spectacular New Species Found in Amazon: Slide Show : Discovery News

More than 1200 new species were identified in the Amazon rainforest between
1999 and 2009. This translates to a rate of one previously undiscovered animal ...



40th AnniversaryMeet the New Species
From old-world primates to patch-nosed salamanders, new creatures are being discovered every day
By Richard Conniff


Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


Nature, the scientific journal, pointed out in 1993 that although one might expect newfound species to be limited to “obscure microbes and insects,” scientists in Vietnam had just discovered a bovine. Then others discovered a striped rabbit in the Mekong Delta and a gaudy Indonesian fish that swims by bouncing haphazardly off the sea bottom.

Such novelties will turn up for years to come. Scientists estimate the total number of plant and animal species in the world at 10 million to 50 million—but they have so far described only about 1.9 million. (The standard definition of a species is a population of organisms that breed together over time and stay separate from other populations.) Even within our own class, mammals, roughly 300 new species have been discovered in the first decade of this century—mostly rodents, but also marsupials, a beaked whale and a slew of primates. Researchers recently estimated that the total mammal species count will rise from about 5,500 now to 7,500 by mid-century. “And 10,000 wouldn’t be a stretch,” says Kristofer Helgen, a mammalogist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who has discovered roughly 100 new species.



Read more: Meet the New Species | 40th Anniversary | Smithsonian Magazine


once again YWC is talking out his ass!

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why aren't apes still evolving into humans ?

If these transitional apes were better adapted why are they extinct and less evolved apes are still here ?

There are many different apes still here but no transitional apes

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.

Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.

What evidence do you have that we killed off neanderthal?

 

[newpolitics]

Why did you ask about common ancestor if you already knew the answer?

I wanted to know what you, Hollymen and Daws were talking about when you throw the term around. No matter what you say, it is a mythical creature at best, and even the last universal ancestor isn't definitive, so I think you all should remove the term from your vocabulary. There really isn't any evidence for a definitive common ancestor so we need to slide him/her/it over to the myth column since that is where you have placed God as well with the same amount of evidence.

You're assertions about me having a presupposition that is equal to yours is hilarious. I can respond to this simply by pointing out that creationists are leading the evidence to their presuppositions, while evolutionists are following the evidence to where it may lead. Are you insisting that a scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't include god? All I would have to say that is: there is no evidence for god.

Once again, your ignorant belief that you are "just following the evidence" makes you totally lost. Just as my belief in God shapes my worldview, your materialism (matter is the only reality) shapes and forms your worldview and is the lens you view everything with. Furthermore, just like all the other clowns, you cling to Darwinism like a religion even when confronted by irrefutable scientific evidence. So you should rephrase your comment above.... you follow the evidence as long as it fits into the TOE. Forgot the God argument, you are not open to alternative, better scientific explanations because you are blinded by your own ignorance of your censoring worldview. You can't see what you can't see.

Are you going to respond to any of my post that had to do with horizontal gene transfer? You seem to think this is a giant hole in evolution, yet I demonstrated how you're understanding is completely faulty, and you all of a sudden have nothing to say. Funny. Stop parading around you're victory over strawmen. It's getting really annoying.

Now, to respond to your ridiculous paragraph. My materialism does not shape my worldview, it is a response to observing a world in which no god is needed to explain anything. You are the one asserting an addition to this universe, therefore, you have the burden of proof. So far, no theist has ever demonstrated that a god exists. Also, there is no reason to assume a god is behind anything, since a god is not observable, so it is not included. This is simple. You glean knowledge from god by reading a book, and then look for it in the world. This is a book with its own significant problems as to whether it is at all true. There is no extra-biblical evidence of ANY miracles of Jesus or God. You simply believe it because it tells you to. At best, Jesus was political revolutionary fighting for freedom from the tyrannical Romans in a time when the jews were waiting and expecting a messiah figure to save them from the extremely harsh Roman imperialism. There you have a motive to establish a religion, to defeat the ruling population, and is evidenced by much christian interpolation and the "borrowing" of mythologies from around that time. The mythology of jesus is completely non-unique. All of his miracles are copied from other mythologies at the time. Why do I mention Jesus? He is the basis of your faith upon which your claims against evolution are anchored. Further, your strategy merely includes attacking evolution. Amazingly, you get upset when people attack the validity of your beliefs. You provide no positive evidence for the existence god, because you don't have any. All you can do is poke holes in the evolution to try to make your case stronger, which doesn't work, because at its foundation, it is logically fallacious in trying to prove a claim to be true. Criticizing evolution will never make ID true. Even if evolution was proven false tomorrow, that wouldn't make ID true. You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

 

[newpolitics]

Things that make you go.. Hmmm. If there is some species in between the ape and human, we would have to assume the inbetweener had traits that provided better fitness or he/she would not have survived to eventually become human. So if the inbetweeners traits provided more fitness, why is the less fit ape still around but there is no fossil of the more fit inbetweener?? Doh!!!! This just proves my point that the whole theory of natural selection is foundation-less, because there is no scientifically agreed upon definition or criteria for fitness. This is where the pseudo science of evolution rules and they plug in the convenient "might haves" and "could haves" but have no real scientific evidence to back up their conjecture. Then all the bozo materialists latch onto it and really don't care about evidence, because it supports their worldview of matter being the only reality.

What????? All that is required for speciation is a geographical barrier, be it a mountain range or large body of water, anything... so it is not hard to come by. Enough time apart adapting to different conditions will eventually make interbreeding impossible between two populations that were at one point the same species that simply got split up. Now that you have two different populations, constituting of two different species, there is no reason why one will annihilate the other, yet that is what you are assuming, and that is completely unfounded. They may continue along their divergent paths and continue to grow apart over a long period of time, having split from a common acestor, until they develop significantly different appearances. Once they split and are two different species, they will necessarily diverge at their own rates. That is unavoidable. There is no reason why one species would calculate a war against the "less fit" species. They don't know which one is less fit, and may have no reason to go on a genocidal rampage. In fact, I would argue that this is almost never the case. The one time we know it did happen was with humans and neanderthals. We killed off neanderthals and actually interbred with them evidenced by about 4% of our DNA being neanderthal DNA. I assume neanderthals were only a sub-species of humans, and hence, interbreeding was still a possibility, but I don't know. Again, I don't care enough to research this unless you directly challenge it.

Regardless, once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about evolution. You are attacking a strawman, not the real thing. Keep that in mind.

Who said anything about war?? Your perception (that you think is so unpolluted) totally interjected that in. Go back and read my post. I think it is you that just built up a nice strawman. I was talking about natural selection. Oh and nice that you addressed my comments about a definition of fitness that can be scientifically verified by experiment.

What evidence do you have that we killed off neanderthal?

How else do you propose one population gets wiped out? I am merely following the logical absurdity of your ideas, not building straw men, since you failed to describe a mechanism by which a less fit population will be wiped out, which actually makes no sense, because neither would be "less fit." They would each evolve and adapt to their respective environment to the degree necessary and perfectly, unless their environment changed too rapidly or they were hit by a cataclysmic occurrence in that area (meteorite, fires, floods, etc...). By necessity, two populations separated by a geological barrier and evolving separately would not be in conflict with each other, so it merely becomes a matter of whether each respective population is able to adapt and evolve to their newfound surroundings successfully. Hence, there is no reason why both would not live on. Both will survive along separate paths, in separate areas. It is only when reunited that conflicts may occur, but still doesn't mean that one wipes out the other. You're assertion holds zero water, because you simply don't understand evolution. You are building straw men, over and over and over, and you think you have defeated evolution, but in reality, you have only defeated your own straw man.

 

[UltimateReality]

You have ZERO positive evidence for ID. This makes the efforts of the ID community intellectually dishonest.

Okay, Hollie. This is a blatant lie. I have presented a sound, scientific argument for ID pages back.