Why aren't monkeys evolving now?

[Tuckwolf]

That doesn't change the fact of evolution. You are denying a reality. Humans are changing, evolving.

1). Evolution is not fact. It's a THEORY.

2). You are mistaking adaptation for evolution.

1). Evolution IS considered a fact by biologists.
2). While the word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch, in science, a "theory" is a belief based upon observable phenomenon that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation.

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

 

[Syriusly]

Humans are getting larger because there's more meat in their diet. Go to a country where they still eat mostly corn and beans (Mexico) and you will see how small the people are, especially the Indian women.

I disagree. For thousands of years the eskimos ate almost nothing but meat, but they didn't grow large. We've had lots of people who had all the meat they wanted, like families with large herds of animals. But they didn't grow large.

The reason humans are getting larger is because their meat contains growth hormones.

Humans have been getting taller over time. Fossil records prove this. It has nothing to do with growth hormones.

Well both sides have some of this right.

Before the invention of agriculture, hunter gatherers of the era were taller and 'healthier' than early farmers. This is supposedly due to the very narrow focus of their diets- anyway its an interesting topic

The Worst Mistake in the History ofthe Human Race

One straight forward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunger-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5' 9'' for men, 5' 5'' for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B. C. had reached a low of only 5' 3'' for men, 5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.

The individual human is not as tall and healthy, but agriculture supports a bigger population per acre than hunting/gathering.

That is the point that Diamond was making- which is better for civilization- but worse health for the individuals.

 

[Syriusly]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

If the Church wants to claim that Adam and Eve represent the first true humans- I have no problem with that.

 

[Blackrook]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

 

[HUGGY]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

 

[Blackrook]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

OK, well if you don't believe the human soul exists, then your opinion on my theory about how the first human got a soul is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[HUGGY]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

OK, well if you don't believe the human soul exists, then your opinion on my theory about how the first human got a soul is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

 

[Blackrook]

The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul did not "evolve" from anything lower.

What that means is that, at some point in prehistory, God intervened and turned an animal lifeform into a human being, by giving it a soul.

Perhaps God chose two animals to turn into human beings, meaning the Adam and Eve story are not far from the literal truth.

What say you?

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

OK, well if you don't believe the human soul exists, then your opinion on my theory about how the first human got a soul is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

 

[dblack]

Nonsense.

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

OK, well if you don't believe the human soul exists, then your opinion on my theory about how the first human got a soul is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

The idea that faith "costs nothing" isn't really a given. Depends on what you invest.

 

[Blackrook]

You're going to have to explain why this is nonsense.

Is it that you believe the theory incorrect?

Or is it that you believe there is no such thing as a human soul?

Both.

OK, well if you don't believe the human soul exists, then your opinion on my theory about how the first human got a soul is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The existance of a soul is silly. That's taking self awareness to narcissism. This add-on feature only gives rise to the fraud of an afterlife which is where religion "evolves" into criminality.

How much are the frightend near death duped willing to bequeith the churches for a place in heaven?...

Let the bidding begin..

I have witnessed this disgusting practice several times first hand.

How much treasure has been stolen from the rightful heirs of a families resources in this fashion?

Billions? Trillions? More?

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

The idea that faith "costs nothing" isn't really a given. Depends on what you invest.

OK, that's true.

Some people devote their entire lives to God, and they give up marriage and children.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

That doesn't change the fact of evolution. You are denying a reality. Humans are changing, evolving.

1). Evolution is not fact. It's a THEORY.

2). You are mistaking adaptation for evolution.

1). Evolution IS considered a fact by biologists.
2). While the word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch, in science, a "theory" is a belief based upon observable phenomenon that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation.

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

 

[Tuckwolf]

That doesn't change the fact of evolution. You are denying a reality. Humans are changing, evolving.

1). Evolution is not fact. It's a THEORY.

2). You are mistaking adaptation for evolution.

1). Evolution IS considered a fact by biologists.
2). While the word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch, in science, a "theory" is a belief based upon observable phenomenon that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation.

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

I don't either, it is a daunting task actually. Most people come on and ask these types of questions which are actually traps. There is no answer for them which will be satisfactory, but I do like to try from time to time. Sometimes it seems that science is a language of its own spoken only to a select few. Part of the problem is when people come with types of question they are looking for sort of proof for evolution as if its a riddle that can be solved in so many words. The problem is that learning is not a passive but aggressive act. Knowledge cannot be given so much as it must be taken. and it is out there waiting for those who are willing to move outside comfort zone and find then. I was actually looking for place to discuss science when I landed here. I wasn't expecting to have to teach it to bunch of children who never wanted to learn it in the first place.
Usually my thing is Cosmology or particle Physics but I keep track of all the professional journals. One thing that has always amazed me about people is that when I try to share things with them, they act like I have some ulterior motive. My only motive is the science.

 

[HUGGY]

1). Evolution is not fact. It's a THEORY.

2). You are mistaking adaptation for evolution.

1). Evolution IS considered a fact by biologists.
2). While the word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch, in science, a "theory" is a belief based upon observable phenomenon that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation.

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

I don't either, it is a daunting task actually. Most people come on and ask these types of questions which are actually traps. There is no answer for them which will be satisfactory, but I do like to try from time to time. Sometimes it seems that science is a language of its own spoken only to a select few. Part of the problem is when people come with types of question they are looking for sort of proof for evolution as if its a riddle that can be solved in so many words. The problem is that learning is not a passive but aggressive act. Knowledge cannot be given so much as it must be taken. and it is out there waiting for those who are willing to move outside comfort zone and find then. I was actually looking for place to discuss science when I landed here. I wasn't expecting to have to teach it to bunch of children who never wanted to learn it in the first place.
Usually my thing is Cosmology or particle Physics but I keep track of all the professional journals. One thing that has always amazed me about people is that when I try to share things with them, they act like I have some ulterior motive. My only motive is the science.

There are better sub forums here at USMB to teach or learn science. This is the religious forum and the topic/OP is obviously a baiting question meant to draw in members to challenge the OP's preconceived conclusion that human beings couldn't have come from "monkeys".

We have a healthy constituent of atheists at USMB. The OP really meant to find argument with us as well as support from the "Adam and Eve" crowd. Unless you can quantify the power of "faith" in layman's term I doubt you will get much traction here.

 

[rightwinger]

Who says monkeys have not evolved?

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards could recreate most of the threads on this message board

 

[HUGGY]

Who says monkeys have not evolved?

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards could recreate most of the threads on this message board

Speaking of "recreation" I wonder whatever happened to CaliGirl? Permabanned?

 

[amrchaos]

Who says monkeys have not evolved?

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards could recreate most of the threads on this message board

Speaking of "recreation" I wonder whatever happened to CaliGirl? Permabanned?

Caligirl got banned?

For what?

 

[Brucethethinker]

At some point in time, you and I will both find out who is right and who is wrong about the existence of the human soul.

If I am wrong, I lose nothing.

If I am right, I gain everything.

You, on the other hand, gain nothing if you are right, and lose everything if you are wrong.

You can't win this wager because the best you can hope for is a tie.

I know this is not an original idea, but most ideas aren't original.

I claim, I know for a fact, that if you go outside right now and do three jumping jacks and holler "glory be", you will live forever, you will become better looking and wealthy, and all your descendants will live disease free forever.

If I'm correct (which I am), you gain everything.

If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose.

Are you going to do the jumping jacks? If no, why not?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who says monkeys have not evolved?

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards could recreate most of the threads on this message board

Speaking of "recreation" I wonder whatever happened to CaliGirl? Permabanned?

Yes. She's not up to the new USMB "5th grader and anal sex" posting level in order to return

 

[Blackrook]

1). Evolution IS considered a fact by biologists.
2). While the word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch, in science, a "theory" is a belief based upon observable phenomenon that has been generally accepted by scientists as a result of extensive experimentation.

1. Yep.

2. A theory is not a belief and should not be a belief. It is an attempt at explaining and describing a phenomenon and a framework for making predictions. Beliefs have nothing to do with theories. Accepting that a theory is the best explanation at the time of the current available evidence is the most anyone should do.

That was sloppy of me. Allow me to correct the mistake:
A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

I agree. Scientific theories are complex things, not just in how they come to be scientific theories but also in how people associate with them cognitively. Most people, in my experience, don't seem to fully grasp scientific theories which is understandable given their complexity, and on top of that most people think that theories are either facts, beliefs, or in the other extreme: baseless speculation (as some in this thread do).

There seems to be, IMO, for human beings some psychological need to have certainty. Even some non-religious people think science is about Truth when really it's about truth. And the hard to grasp part of that is that for science there is no real certainty. All of it is open to doubt. And that is a feature of science and not a deficit. Based on current evidence I feel pretty certain that the current theories about evolution are for the most accurate (notice I didn't use the words true, or correct, etc.) but they could be completely off-base in a way that I can't imagine or foresee. That doubt is anathema to dogma and allows for learning, growth, and a continued seeking for truth. I think it would be defined as skepticism.

Many of the posters on this thread know very little regarding the theories about evolution, or cosmological theories and wouldn't take the time or make the effort to even read about them. Nor do they understand of what or for what these theories comprise, demonstrating that when they conflate common descent with the beginning of life on Earth or the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe. Or when they think evolution is a fact and a theory. Even some atheists make that mistake.

I don't post often on these forums, but when I do, it's when people misunderstand, mischaracterize, misconstrue, or are not familiar with science. Atheists and the religious alike.

I don't either, it is a daunting task actually. Most people come on and ask these types of questions which are actually traps. There is no answer for them which will be satisfactory, but I do like to try from time to time. Sometimes it seems that science is a language of its own spoken only to a select few. Part of the problem is when people come with types of question they are looking for sort of proof for evolution as if its a riddle that can be solved in so many words. The problem is that learning is not a passive but aggressive act. Knowledge cannot be given so much as it must be taken. and it is out there waiting for those who are willing to move outside comfort zone and find then. I was actually looking for place to discuss science when I landed here. I wasn't expecting to have to teach it to bunch of children who never wanted to learn it in the first place.
Usually my thing is Cosmology or particle Physics but I keep track of all the professional journals. One thing that has always amazed me about people is that when I try to share things with them, they act like I have some ulterior motive. My only motive is the science.

There are better sub forums here at USMB to teach or learn science. This is the religious forum and the topic/OP is obviously a baiting question meant to draw in members to challenge the OP's preconceived conclusion that human beings couldn't have come from "monkeys".

We have a healthy constituent of atheists at USMB. The OP really meant to find argument with us as well as support from the "Adam and Eve" crowd. Unless you can quantify the power of "faith" in layman's term I doubt you will get much traction here.

That is correct, however, I never said what I believe about evolution. I am simply asking questions. I want to know how well people can defend the theory of evolution. It is not enough to say "because the scientists say so." Or "look it up."

 

[HUGGY]

Who says monkeys have not evolved?

A million monkeys typing on a million keyboards could recreate most of the threads on this message board

Speaking of "recreation" I wonder whatever happened to CaliGirl? Permabanned?

Caligirl got banned?

For what?

Ya several times .. mostly after GUNNY left. Then there was the dust-up when Obama got re-elected .....then there was the PM nonsense and the organized mutual rep society.. She is a real peice of work. I heard she was getting married ...maybe that accounts for her absence. Or maybe she crashed her daddy's private jet... Who knows?