Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Science-geeks are saying the Chile-quake has shifted Earth's axis and shortened the length of the Standard Earth Day (or S.E.D. for short) by 1.26 microseconds, so, plan accordingly, you now have less time to go about your daily business.

Personally, I'm going sleep that much less for my adjustment. What are you going to do to adjust to the new S.E.D.?

Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35662192/ns/technology_and_science-space/?GT1=43001

I don't believe in science.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Science-geeks are saying the Chile-quake has shifted Earth's axis and shortened the length of the Standard Earth Day (or S.E.D. for short) by 1.26 microseconds, so, plan accordingly, you now have less time to go about your daily business.

Personally, I'm going sleep that much less for my adjustment. What are you going to do to adjust to the new S.E.D.?

Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35662192/ns/technology_and_science-space/?GT1=43001 Masturbate. I love you heartbeat

Nonsense. There are no mysteries. Everything can be explained by our understanding of science. There are no unknowns!!!

Originally posted by Mindset
I don't believe in science.

No, sir, science does not believe in you!

Well, I'll believe in science long enough just to punch it in the face.

I believe in this type of science:

7iRZDcsqSt0

Originally posted by Robtard
The Science-geeks are saying the Chile-quake has shifted Earth's axis and shortened the length of the Standard Earth Day (or S.E.D. for short) by 1.26 microseconds... Feh. It shifted my molecules by 6.6006 attoseconds. I now feel compelled to wear a blue cape.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Science-geeks are saying the Chile-quake has shifted Earth's axis and shortened the length of the Standard Earth Day (or S.E.D. for short) by 1.26 microseconds, so, plan accordingly, you now have less time to go about your daily business.

Personally, I'm going sleep that much less for my adjustment. What are you going to do to adjust to the new S.E.D.?

Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35662192/ns/technology_and_science-space/?GT1=43001

Damn them, damn them all to hell.

http://www.ballardian.com/images/statue_planet.jpg

Originally posted by One Free Man
Nonsense. There are no mysteries. Everything can be explained by our understanding of science. There are no unknowns!!!

Explain love.

Originally posted by queeq
Explain love.
Sex?

Originally posted by queeq
Explain love.

Oxytocin.

NEXT!

Originally posted by Ordo
Oxytocin.

NEXT!

Explain butt-love.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Explained by LOTS of theoretical nonsense dreamed up by scientists who, just because they have a PHD, are taken by their word as if they know for a fact.

You're right, we shouldn't listen to people who spend decades working on single questions and then provide extensive experimental evidence to back it up. It's just more evidence of how everyone is sheeple. What we should do is listen to the wild claims of everyone who claims to have "read some books once".

Originally posted by Robtard
Explain butt-love.

The currently accepted argument for liking big butts is that it shows evidence that the woman has access to a good supply of food.

Originally posted by Robtard
Explain butt-love.


Robtard.

Next!

Explain Art Deco

Originally posted by Robtard
Explain Art Deco

Einstein's Principle of Retardation

Explain Lost

Originally posted by Robtard
Explain Art Deco

People running out of good ideas.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Einstein's Principle of Retardation

Explain Art Nouveau.

Explain toast falling on the buttered side!!!

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Explain toast falling on the buttered side!!!

Myth busters already did that.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Explain toast falling on the buttered side!!!

That side weighs more?

Originally posted by Robtard
That side weighs more?


Nah. They actually had a slight number in favor of the un-buttered side.


It's probably because the unbuttered side isn't as smooth, and, therefore, "spins" through the half faster/easier and the other side doesn't spin as fast due to more "wind" resistance. Meaning, it could spin, ever so slightly, faster, on the buttered side, than the un-buttered. The percent differene in "spin" could be a direct function of the differences in landing on buttered verses unbuttered side.



The idea that buttered side falls down more than the other side is probably due to some psychological phenomena. You remember the "slightly" more traumatic event of dropping your toast, buttered side, due to the mess and heart-ache it creates. So, it sticks with you brain, more. When you recall the memory, it is more "solid" than the "unscathed" toast-dropping incident, and, therefore, isn't remembered as much. Just a hunch.

I hold toast and the buttering of toast to be of extreme importance.

Drop the toast you say, not on my watch... not on my watch.

Originally posted by Robtard
I hold toast and the buttering of toast to be of extreme importance.

Drop the toast you say, not on my watch... not on my watch.


K. I won't drop it on your watch.

Originally posted by Robtard
Drop the toast you say, not on my watch... not on my watch. Why, Rolex?

Originally posted by queeq
Explain love. Everything we can't explain can be explained by scientist's theories which, true or not, will be accepted as fact and "improved upon" until there is an aspect of the theory that deals with any disproof of said theory.

Seriously, how can you not know how the scientific method works?

Originally posted by One Free Man
Everything we can't explain can be explained by scientist's theories which, true or not, will be accepted as fact and "improved upon" until there is an aspect of the theory that deals with any disproof of said theory.

Seriously, how can you not know how the scientific method works?

So in short, make up some bullshit that can't be proved wrong or right because "they" just don't know.

Exactly. Big Bang, black holes, water on mars=life on mars, particle theory, etc.

Edit: religions too. Just keeping objective.

Originally posted by Robtard
So in short, make up some bullshit that can't be proved wrong or right because "they" just don't know.

You act like you don't already know this rule.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Exactly. Big Bang, black holes, water on mars=life on mars, particle theory, etc.

Edit: religions too. Just keeping objective.

Black holes can be disproven if you find a major flaw in general relativity (good luck). Scientists didn't say water on mars equals life on mars, they said that it could mean that there was once life there. I'm not sure how you would go about disproving the existence of atoms given that we have pictures of them and innumerable experiments demonstrating that they exist.

The Big Bang always struck me as creation for scientists, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Black holes can be disproven if you find a major flaw in general relativity (good luck). Scientists didn't say water on mars equals life on mars, they said that it could mean that there was once life there. I'm not sure how you would go about disproving the existence of atoms given that we have pictures of them and innumerable experiments demonstrating that they exist.

The Big Bang always struck me as creation for scientists, though.


Big Bang is when protons formed the first atoms and the universe sprang to life as a massive light. (It was when it cooled enough..n'stuff.)

Do I win the threadz?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Big Bang is when protons formed the first atoms and the universe sprang to life as a massive light. (It was when it cooled enough..n'stuff.)

Do I win the threadz?

Yes that describes it but what do we have that predict the Big Bang, what do we have predicted by the Big Bang?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. They actually had a slight number in favor of the un-buttered side.


It's probably because the unbuttered side isn't as smooth, and, therefore, "spins" through the half faster/easier and the other side doesn't spin as fast due to more "wind" resistance. Meaning, it could spin, ever so slightly, faster, on the buttered side, than the un-buttered. The percent differene in "spin" could be a direct function of the differences in landing on buttered verses unbuttered side.



The idea that buttered side falls down more than the other side is probably due to some psychological phenomena. You remember the "slightly" more traumatic event of dropping your toast, buttered side, due to the mess and heart-ache it creates. So, it sticks with you brain, more. When you recall the memory, it is more "solid" than the "unscathed" toast-dropping incident, and, therefore, isn't remembered as much. Just a hunch. I think the height matters a lot, buttered toast probably falls more often on the buttered side because it can only manage a half rotation from the 1 to 1.5 m height it is usually dropped.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the height matters a lot, buttered toast probably falls more often on the buttered side because it can only manage a half rotation from the 1 to 1.5 m height it is usually dropped.

You have to control with a non-buttered piece of toast, and with a piece of toast dropped buttered side down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have to control with a non-buttered piece of toast, and with a piece of toast dropped buttered side down. I think I'll pass on testing it, I'll just throw hypothesis out there and you guys can prove them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I'll pass on testing it, I'll just throw hypothesis out there and you guys can prove them.

Nah. It's been done: on mythbusters. They did exactly what I said they were supposed to do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. It's been done: on mythbusters. They did exactly what I said they were supposed to do.

Fun show, that

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. It's been done: on mythbusters. They did exactly what I said they were supposed to do.

what a waste of buttered bread.

Tragic I say.

Tragic.

the only science i believe in is the science of sleep

Wow......

You're so gay, bruce.

Wow........

........woW

Look I said what you said backwards.

Originally posted by Ordo
........woW

Look I said what you said backwards.


.sdrawkcab dias uoy tahw dias I kooL

Look I said what you said backwards.

.sdrawkcab dias uoy tahw dias I kooL

Originally posted by One Free Man
.sdrawkcab dias uoy tahw dias I kooL

!!ti potS

??htW

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Myth busters already did that.

Their results are wrong and misleading because the non innocent observer disturbs the experiment

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Their results are wrong and misleading because the non innocent observer disturbs the experiment

This is toast... not sub atomic particles.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is toast... not sub atomic particles.

Toast are made up of sub atomic particles.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes that describes it but what do we have that predict the Big Bang,

different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.

In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.

So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
what do we have predicted by the Big Bang?

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is, as far as I know, the best evidence of the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

however, many observations, such as the uniform nature of planets moving away from the Earth, redshift, etc, all support the Big Bang hypothesis.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Seriously, how can you not know how the scientific method works?

irony, or very apt sarcasm

Originally posted by inimalist
different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.

In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.

So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).

In astronomy, one predicts observations. In biology, eg, one predicts results from manipulation of variables. Since either could occur with equal regularity, what are the philosophical reasons for seeing the latter as "harder" evidence than the former?

Originally posted by Robtard
Toast are made up of sub atomic particles.

However toast are in an eigenstate.

Originally posted by inimalist
different types of science have different methods for ascertaining evidence. Astronomy is notorious for being difficult, if not impossible, to test empirically through predictable observation.

In this way, astronomical theories shouldn't be interpreted the same way as, say, chemistry or cellular biology, but rather more akin to history and evolutionary science. It is the best interprative framework that exists for the evidence we have.

So yes, it is a patchwork of findings woven into a tapestry, and is not a testable empirical phenomenon, but no, it is not simply "religion" for science. While it is not directly testable, at this point, testable and repeatable results and observations do lend it credability, and currently there are no theories or facts that are irreconcilable with it (as would be required in the philosophy of science for the theory to change, see: Kuhn).

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is, as far as I know, the best evidence of the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

however, many observations, such as the uniform nature of planets moving away from the Earth, redshift, etc, all support the Big Bang hypothesis.



irony, or very apt sarcasm Sure we have credibility and probability, but the scientists see something, and they attribute it to some theory about something. "oop the planets are getting farther apart. Let's give that to the big bang." what? You say you can't make another element out of a noble gas? Uhhhhhh welll, we could imperically test that little fact and find out, but uhhhh it'd destroy the universe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However toast are in an eigenstate.

show off

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You're so gay, bruce.


shame, really, you cannot tell when someone is being sarcastic, let alone when someone is talking about a film

some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

Being fabulous.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?... Perhaps it's another form of population control, so a species won't breed itself out of resources.

not very scientific

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

At the macro level not everything has to have a reason.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

Are you saying that everything that exists has to be of some "advantage"?

I think he is, which is false.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you saying that everything that exists has to be of some "advantage"? of course not.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Sure we have credibility and probability, but the scientists see something, and they attribute it to some theory about something. "oop the planets are getting farther apart. Let's give that to the big bang." what? You say you can't make another element out of a noble gas? Uhhhhhh welll, we could imperically test that little fact and find out, but uhhhh it'd destroy the universe.

are you familiar with the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos?

long story short, your criticism has been built into the scientific theory

Originally posted by Mindship
In astronomy, one predicts observations. In biology, eg, one predicts results from manipulation of variables. Since either could occur with equal regularity, what are the philosophical reasons for seeing the latter as "harder" evidence than the former?

the ability to control confounds.

if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty

okay next question if a human has an added or missing chromosome shouldnt he be categorized as his own species, sub species or acknowledged as a mutant variant?

Are you calling retards (politically correct term) mutants?

Originally posted by Mindset
Are you calling retards (politically correct term) mutants? which is the preferred politically correct term, retards or Mutant?

Mutated retards.

Originally posted by inimalist
are you familiar with the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos?

long story short, your criticism has been built into the scientific theory



the ability to control confounds.

if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty

I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.

Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.

But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.

Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."

If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."

Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.

Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.

But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.

Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."

If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."

Yes, you can keep going on with that way of thinking, but you will never get funding, and on one will listen to you any more.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
not very scientific Hence, "Perhaps."

Originally posted by inimalist
the ability to control confounds.

if done properly, people generally don't see astronomy as "softer" (unless they want to get a rise out of a scientist), it is just a different type of methodology and sort of philosophical certainty That's what I thought. Understandably, scientists (being human) like more "hands on." But, yeah, if done properly, it should be just as valid.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.

Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.

But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.

Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."

If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."

First of all claims like that usually don't make it past peer review. Secondly a claim based on "there's no evidence that this isn't true" won't get very far in the sciences.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I'm not saying this is cold, hard, fact.

Maybe it's even a conspiracy theory, and doesn't belong here.

But what if, They make elementary hypothesis, and instead of having tests disprove their hypothesis, they alter their hypothesis so that it remains plausible.

Thus, I make a hypothesis that the table on which the computor is sitting on is a hologram, for instance. You say something to the extent of, "no it's not, and I can prove it." and set your keys on it. At this point, I say "Wow, they must have a force field projecting around that hologram to keep your keys from falling through."

If I continue to modify my "story" in this nature as new obstacles arrive, into eternity, then nobody can disprove it. And if anyone tries to disprove it, I can say:
"I've been testing this for years. There's been no hard evidence that that table is not a force-field enhanced hologram so far. If there was, I would have dis-proven it YEARS ago."

Blah, I'll try to give a real answer to this, as I can totally see where you are coming from

All science, please remember, is a human endeavor, and will therefore be as flawed and subject to personal biases as anything else. Most scientists who produce amazing results early in their career later end up fighting against new ideas that displace theirs, regardless of the data. People form into theoretical "camps" and it is hard to publish data that doesn't fit neatly into those theories.

However, the specific issue you are talking about is Occam's Razor. The hologram offers more variables than an alternative hypothesis, so unless there is a reason to dismiss the alternatives, the hologram hypothesis is too cumbersome

Bah, Ockham was a drunk and a pederast, people can't even agree on the proper spelling of his name. It's rubbish I say, rubbish.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

There doesn't need to be a reason for other creatures, but a good reason for humans, on a genetic level, is the increased survival of the children from the "not gay" sisters of the gay male.

On average, the sisters of the gay can have more children because there's an extra person there to rear the children. (lol)



You can google reasons (genetic) for homosexuality, you know. Many of those are "official" empirical/peer reviewed studies.

^

Ridiculous, this assumes that the "gay" won't leave the nest, which by anecdotal evidence, the opposite is true; the "gay" is more likely to leave the nest at an even earlier stage of life.

2 points ofr the Knocked Up reference, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There doesn't need to be a reason for other creatures, but a good reason for humans, on a genetic level, is the increased survival of the children from the "not gay" sisters of the gay male.

On average, the sisters of the gay can have more children because there's an extra person there to rear the children.


You can google reasons (genetic) for homosexuality, you know. Many of those are "official" empirical/peer reviewed studies. i rather hear layman's ideas then some cold scientific theory..

besides i heard some already from being a mental brain chemistry thing to not being bombarded by not enough testosterone when the fetus sex is about to be triggered and developed inside the womb causing the fetus to retain more feminine traits from not being bombarded by enough testosterone... also being the nature vs nurtur thing as well (lol)

Originally posted by Mindship
That's what I thought. Understandably, scientists (being human) like more "hands on." But, yeah, if done properly, it should be just as valid.

valid is a tough word, but I get the meaning

I'd almost say that the issue here is people putting too much faith in lab results, as if they are more "conclusive" than some types of observational results.

That being said, in my field, if there were two competing theories, one supported only by observation and the other only by experimental results, history of psych says the observational one is likely false

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Secondly a claim based on "there's no evidence that this isn't true" won't get very far in the sciences.

yes and no, in a very strict sense, the only way to provide support for a theory is to provide evidence against competing theories, so in that sense, evidence that something isn't true, and lacking such evidence is support of a theory.

That being said, a theory which has no proof against it, yet does nothing to propose further experimentation or interpretation (like the hologram example) is worthless in terms of actual theoretical content.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i rather hear layman's ideas then some cold scientific theory..

Wah?

Don't make fragment sentences.


I assume you're saying, "I hear Layman's ideas, from you, rather than some cold scientific theory."


If that's the case, stop being lazy, and verify if what I said was correct. You're the one that is curious, not me. I already read these studies.


Originally posted by Wild Shadow
besides i heard some already from being a mental brain chemistry thing to not being bombarded by not enough testosterone when the fetus sex is about to be triggered and developed inside the womb causing the fetus to retain more feminine traits from not being bombarded by enough testosterone... also being the nature vs nurtur thing as well (lol)


Yeah yeah yeah. That's sort of it, and it's true.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

Ridiculous, this assumes that the "gay" won't leave the nest, which by anecdotal evidence, the opposite is true; the "gay" is more likely to leave the nest at an even earlier stage of life.

2 points ofr the Knocked Up reference, though.

Whaaa?


No.


That movie got it from somewhere else...which happens to be what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by inimalist
valid is a tough word, but I get the meaning My bad. I was typing faster than I was thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume you're saying, "I hear Layman's ideas, from you, rather than some cold scientific theory."

Seems more like "I'd rather heat laymen's ideas than some scientific theory". Which admittedly is a very odd thing to say but makes use of more of his words.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
some one explain the reason of creatures being Gay what is the advantage to it?...

The RDForums would have a field day with this. I once saw a legitimate poster trigger a scorched earth policy after "grossly overemphasizing the adaptationist paradigm" or some such. So I have posted only twice.

Anywhoo, GODDIDIT

aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

They would be a mutant, yesn but clearly still human in any meaningful sense.

what so negative about being called a mutant? i mean it is a term used everyday in marvel comics and i never saw kitty freak out over it.... its not like your calling them a mutie.

the conotation would be he is superpowered and shun by a jealous society.

The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

Mutants aren't something new, they are something broken.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

Mutants aren't something new, they are something broken.

It all depends on what you call a mutant. Not all mutations lead to disaster. Some lead to mundane things like red hair.

Also, your statement that "genetic data has never been added on" makes no sense, and is not true. Viruses change (add on) genetic data all the time. That is how we get new viruses every year.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

For something new to begin, otherwise?? Die out. Makes one want to cry, huh. crybaby

LOL

Originally posted by One Free Man
The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

That doesn't make anything approaching sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

it is usually hard to find a mate whether it is the run of the mill human or a mutated variant with altered chromosomes.

it what happens to many variant animals they usually die on their own without passing the genes or are swallowed back into their species and their genetic anomaly is then buried.

i bn thinking if a human has an added chromosome shouldnt it be easier to create a human/Ape hybrid? just wondering...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a good change that the missing chromosome could not be passed on to a new generation because there would have to be a mate that also had the same missing chromosome.

Indeed.

I don't know of one example (outside of a lab) where the genetic data equivalent to that of a chromosome, is missing or added to an existing species, and it occurred enough in a single generation to sustain a steady population with the "mutation."

The vast majority of significant mutations are negative/bad.

I don't know of any disorder, among humans, that creates an entire, brand new, chromosome (NOT duplication or amalgamation). That's waaaaay too much effin' genetic data. We are talking millions of years.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
aside from mindset no one else answered my new question: if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

technically they may be. however. there is no ultimate and perfect/ideal definition of a species, its all vagueries of language and its usually creationists who try to say that speciation=macroevolution=chromosomal mutation. which is false.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The point is, genetic data has never been added on, simply successfully weeded out.

Mutants aren't something new, they are something broken.

false. it can be added on. mutants can be either. often theyr bad but not always.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
what so negative about being called a mutant? i mean it is a term used everyday in marvel comics and i never saw kitty freak out over it.... its not like your calling them a mutie.

the conotation would be he is superpowered and shun by a jealous society. In comics, getting hit by a gamma bomb ain't so bad, either.

Originally posted by Mindship
In comics, getting hit by a gamma bomb ain't so bad, either.

Woah, someone missed the point of the Hulk big time.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Woah, someone missed the point of the Hulk big time..... Kindly explain.

Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly explain. The original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though...

Originally posted by Parmaniac
The original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though... Ah. I was just highlighting WS's relating comics to real life.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
if a human is born with a missing or added chromosome shouldnt they be considered a new species, subspecies or a mutated variant, rather then grouped with the rest of humanity?

species is a very hard term to define, for the reason you point out. How much difference, and difference from what, is needed before 2 organisms are considered to be of different species?

Technically, no, the person with the mutation is still human, however, the more you deconstruct the idea of "species" the easier it becomes to argue that there are no such thing as species or that every organism could be its own species.

Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly explain. Originally posted by Parmaniac
The original concept of the Hulk was a rip off of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bruce Banner = Jekyll, Hulk = Hyde. It turned him into a being that he can't control and wreaks havoc on it's environment and people he loves, that's why he was scared of turning into the Hulk, that was the concept in the beginning the Hulk nowadays wants to be left alone though...

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. It was mostly a joke, really.

Originally posted by inimalist
species is a very hard term to define, for the reason you point out. How much difference, and difference from what, is needed before 2 organisms are considered to be of different species?

Technically, no, the person with the mutation is still human, however, the more you deconstruct the idea of "species" the easier it becomes to argue that there are no such thing as species or that every organism could be its own species.

I thought "species" was rather easy to define:

sexual: members of a species can breed with eachother and produce fertile offspring (Black Lab and a Great Dane: they look very different and have many physiological differences, but they can make fertile babies that can in turn, make babies...weird looking ones, probably.)


asexual: Everything goes to shit here. It would require a lengthy, complex, definition. weep

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought "species" was rather easy to define:

sexual: members of a species can breed with eachother and produce fertile offspring (Black Lab and a Great Dane: they look very different and have many physiological differences, but they can make fertile babies that can in turn, make babies...weird looking ones, probably.)


asexual: Everything goes to shit here. It would require a lengthy, complex, definition. weep

there are working and coloquial definitions, sure, but none of them stand up to even modest deconstruction (For your particular example, it falls apart at the level of birds depending on the environment, I'm sure I've talked about arctic birds before, right?). Especially in terms of speciation, as in, what is a new species.

For instance, in the span of pre-human to human, there was never a point where a mother gave birth to a child with whom it shared so little dna that they couldn't produce offspring.

Which is, I suppose, a better point anyways. The whole concept of "species" is not an individual level phenomenon. For a mutation to constitute a new species it would need to be within a population larger than a single "mutant" individual. Of course, the term mutant being totally useless, as we are all "mutants" in this way.

Originally posted by inimalist
there are working and coloquial definitions, sure, but none of them stand up to even modest deconstruction (For your particular example, it falls apart at the level of birds depending on the environment, I'm sure I've talked about arctic birds before, right?). Especially in terms of speciation, as in, what is a new species.

For instance, in the span of pre-human to human, there was never a point where a mother gave birth to a child with whom it shared so little dna that they couldn't produce offspring.

I don't get it. I'm seriously lost as to WTF you're talking about.

In your example, it would be 1 male and 1 female of the same species producing offspring. That offspring can then, in turn, reproduce with any other of the animals in their species.

For example, horse and a donkey make a mule. The mule cannot reproduce. They are closely enough related that offspring can occur, but distantly enough related that it can't produce fertile offspring.

That's how it works.


And, I have no idea what arctic birds have to do with this.


If you run across two arctic birds that look different, have slightly different physiology, but they can mate and produce offspring that can in turn produce offspring from "either" side of the "different" looking parents, the two parents are just part of two different sub-species...but still the same species.

The dilemma comes in if two previously thought distinct species can reproduce. That's easy to remedy: same species, but each are sub-species (just a quick mod to the binomial nomenclature...lulz). This should hold true, even in the case of a natural vast geographic separation.

Originally posted by inimalist
Which is, I suppose, a better point anyways. The whole concept of "species" is not an individual level phenomenon. For a mutation to constitute a new species it would need to be within a population larger than a single "mutant" individual. Of course, the term mutant being totally useless, as we are all "mutants" in this way.

From my understanding, the species problem is almost wholly philosophical (for sexual organisms). Taxonomists seem to do just fine. They can get by with the "sub-species" excuse.

I never understood the need for a debate over sexual species: didn't understand the need for it as a kid, as a high-school student, nor as a college student.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
false. it can be added on. mutants can be either. often theyr bad but not always. False.

Basic genetics.

Look up: Genotype and Phenotype.

Mutants are either that way because of teratogens or because of genetic defects.

Not because anything has been added to the genetic code.

Originally posted by One Free Man
False.

Basic genetics.

Look up: Genotype and Phenotype.

Mutants are either that way because of teratogens or because of genetic defects.

Not because anything has been added to the genetic code.

I already told you about viruses, but you just ignored it. I think you don't want to hear the true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get it. I'm seriously lost as to WTF you're talking about.

fair enough

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I already told you about viruses, but you just ignored it. I think you don't want to hear the true. please tell me again or post a link to where you told me before. I apologize for ignoring you, you are still on my ignore list so that I can only read your uneducated trolling when I feel like it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what you call a mutant. Not all mutations lead to disaster. Some lead to mundane things like red hair.

Also, your statement that "genetic data has never been added on" makes no sense, and is not true. Viruses change (add on) genetic data all the time. That is how we get new viruses every year. Incorrect. Slightly different virus=different phenotype, not genotype.

Defenition:
Phenotype: the genetic charactaristics that come forth in something.
Genotype: the genetic charactaristics available for the phenotype to chose from.

If you are talking about the reaction to medication that causes virus's to become immune to the medication, we are talking about a mutation that is made widespread by SOF.

Most medications are like poisons to certain germs, and they work by attaching themselves to the germ and killing it. Germs that are killed by the medication die, but ones that aren't, live. Evolution? Guess again. The germs that survive are the ones that have a mutation that renders them unable to digest the medication. This leaves them weaker, but less susceptible to the medication. They are damaged, not "added onto"

And germs "evolve" and "cross breed" into germs of the same kind. But they never exceed their genotype.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Incorrect. Slightly different virus=different phenotype, not genotype.

Defenition:
Phenotype: the genetic charactaristics that come forth in something.
Genotype: the genetic charactaristics available for the phenotype to chose from.

If you are talking about the reaction to medication that causes virus's to become immune to the medication, we are talking about a mutation that is made widespread by SOF.

Most medications are like poisons to certain germs, and they work by attaching themselves to the germ and killing it. Germs that are killed by the medication die, but ones that aren't, live. Evolution? Guess again. The germs that survive are the ones that have a mutation that renders them unable to digest the medication. This leaves them weaker, but less susceptible to the medication. They are damaged, not "added onto"

And germs "evolve" and "cross breed" into germs of the same kind. But they never exceed their genotype.


lmao. u do know im an undergrad in evolutionary bio right???

genetupe means the physical composition of dna and phenotype means the alleales that actually show in the physical structure of the organism in question resulting from uni dominance or partial dominance of the alleale.

addition mutation can rather easily add to the genetic makeup of the species, as can the mutation of a stop codon.

not all germs "cross breed" infact sexual reproduction in bacteria is a very rare occurance on the whole.

and quite honestly i dont understand what you mean by "exceed their phenotype". do u mean exceed their number of chromosomes{the old ridiculous arguments of so called "macro" evolution?}? if thats the case then ur wrong again, they can.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao. u do know im an undergrad in evolutionary bio right???

genetupe means the physical composition of dna and phenotype means the alleales that actually show in the physical structure of the organism in question resulting from uni dominance or partial dominance of the alleale.
That's what I said, in layman's terms.

I disagree. mutations can be made to splice or slightly alter certain genetic make-up, but they can't add new information.
No, create new information, not new chromosomes.

Originally posted by One Free Man
That's what I said, in layman's terms.

I disagree. mutations can be made to splice or slightly alter certain genetic make-up, but they can't add new information.
No, create new information, not new chromosomes.

no u didnt.

it doesnt matter if you disagree, addition mutation is a well documented phenomenon.


again, ur using christian propaganda for information, "addition mutation is a well documented fact" as well as mutation which changes the base cobination in stop codons. both of these lead to addition of new genetic material{and there are other ways too}.

The Genetics of Down Syndrome

When a woman conceives, both mother and father typically contribute 23 chromosomes each, adding up to 46 total chromosomes. In Down syndrome, a child inherits an extra chromosome, with a total of 47 chromosomes. The extra chromosome occurs in chromosome 21. This is usually caused by something known as nondisjunction. When a number 21 chromosome does not separate during the egg or sperm cell formation, it is called a nondisjunction. When this malformed egg or sperm meets a normal egg or sperm and an embryo is formed, there will be 3 number 21 chromosomes. When this happens, Down syndrome is the result. Having an extra chromosome means that more protein than normal is present in the genes. This possibly contributes to the symptoms caused by certain genes on the 21st. chromosome.

Carriers of Down syndrome can sometimes be the result of something caused Robertsonian translocation. This is when the arm of the number 21 chromosome breaks off and joins another chromosome at the center. The baby will not have Down syndrome symptoms, but may have a child with the disorder as a result of this occurrence.

As we see with a look at human genetics, Down syndrome spontaneously occurs without any known cause. The result of trisomy 21 is a variety of differences, symptoms, and challenges, but people with Down syndrome are more like others than not, and this is what we should remember when working with these children as teachers.

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/education/special/articles/65442.aspx#ixzz0hU6bD9CY

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/051223/124518__ringer_l.jpg

Originally posted by One Free Man
I disagree. mutations can be made to splice or slightly alter certain genetic make-up, but they can't add new information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)

Originally posted by King Kandy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)

I think his point is that the the information being inserted isn't new. It's just an already existing base pair or codon here and there either into the introns or exons on a DNA strand.

i want my monkey man or at least a hover board!!! i dont care if i am 80 yrs old i am getting one even if i have to threaten someone...

question: what are the odds of that happening in the near future?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i want my monkey man or at least a hover board!!! i dont care if i am 80 yrs old i am getting one even if i have to threaten someone...

question: what are the odds of that happening in the near future?

What? You threatening someone?...High probably. It's what you people do.

Originally posted by jaden101
What? You threatening someone?...High probably. It's what you people do. tAlVKgl_zCQ


my question is not the odds of me threatening someone but, what are the odds of such a scientific feat being accomplished?

also by monkey man i actually meant ape man since he is closer to the human genome.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i want my monkey man or at least a hover board!!! i dont care if i am 80 yrs old i am getting one even if i have to threaten someone...

question: what are the odds of that happening in the near future?

The hoverboard just depends on how much you're willing to shell out to have it built for you. But it's going to be loud and not much fun to ride.

Monkey men exist today, they're just guys in make up. If you want a "genetic combination" of a man and monkey it's never going to happen because that's not really meaningful.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think his point is that the the information being inserted isn't new. It's just an already existing base pair or codon here and there either into the introns or exons on a DNA strand.
The number of possible single base pairs is very, very limited. Inserting one where it doesn't belong can cause coding for entirely different traits than the codon it originated from.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The hoverboard just depends on how much you're willing to shell out to have it built for you. But it's going to be loud and not much fun to ride.

Monkey men exist today, they're just guys in make up. If you want a "genetic combination" of a man and monkey it's never going to happen because that's not really meaningful.

it is to me....

anyways whether it serves a purpose or not do you guys think it could become possible to create such a hybrid in the near future just by the knowledge that we have or will have in the near future in genetic engineering?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
it's going to be loud and not much fun to ride.
That's what she said.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think his point is that the the information being inserted isn't new. It's just an already existing base pair or codon here and there either into the introns or exons on a DNA strand.


ok i think theres a lot of ignorance in these boards about what counts as INFORMATION at the genetic level.

the dna is made of only FOUR bases{i.e. four molecular monomers}. however, the reason we call it a CODE is because it the protien's produced from transcription of these bases are produced based on their PATTERNS. that argument is analogous to " well there isnt any INFORMATION "added" to the dvd seein as its only made up of two components. zeros and ones".

the four bases are represented by A T G C.

the second thing to consider is the stop codon. this is a set of three corresponding bases on the mRNA which STOP traslation of the dna code at a certain point so that a finite set of translated code is carried into the cell ribosomes where the base configuration{code} on the mRNA can be used by the tRNA to band together the coded protien from{after all without it all you wud really have is the entire length of the dna being copied and lots of dna being made in the ribosomes instead of parts of the dna which code for certain protiens} the code carried by it.

now consider a part of the dna

atgccga if even one mutation changes the "first g into a c" the entire CODE changes and the thing being coded for also changes. so u have
atcgccg, which is coding for an ENTIRELY different protien altogether, leading to entirely different phenotypes. {and yes this CAN create a new species as the traist can make it possible that the new breed can not sexually create offspring with its parent breed, if u wanna define species that way}, effectively creating a new breed without messing with the chromosomal number, the so called macro evolution.

furthermore, messing with the stop codon can also produce different protiens.

furthermore, the teleomere can me damaged or mutated to directly add molecules on to the initial code as well as forcing more than one base in between the dna where initially only one was present, changing the enitre alleale structure.

i guess u wud have to read sum books on it to really understand, but the creationist definitions of "information" are false, as they fail to take into account "coding" or translation.

Well, I suppose the point that there might be an absolute limit is true. (maybe? not sure, have to think about it...well, probably)

But to give an example the information a computer has, is even more limited, but through the clever combination of it all these things we see here are possible. I mean, really it is a non-argument, new obviously refers to information that hasn't previously been there not to information that couldn't previously be there.

It's like saying a new song isn't new because all the notes existed before and the potential was always there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ok i think theres a lot of ignorance in these boards about what counts as INFORMATION at the genetic level.

the dna is made of only FOUR bases{i.e. four molecular monomers}. however, the reason we call it a CODE is because it the protien's produced from transcription of these bases are produced based on their PATTERNS. that argument is analogous to " well there isnt any INFORMATION "added" to the dvd seein as its only made up of two components. zeros and ones".

the four bases are represented by A T G C.

the second thing to consider is the stop codon. this is a set of three corresponding bases on the mRNA which STOP traslation of the dna code at a certain point so that a finite set of translated code is carried into the cell ribosomes where the base configuration{code} on the mRNA can be used by the tRNA to band together the coded protien from{after all without it all you wud really have is the entire length of the dna being copied and lots of dna being made in the ribosomes instead of parts of the dna which code for certain protiens} the code carried by it.

now consider a part of the dna

atgccga if even one mutation changes the "first g into a c" the entire CODE changes and the thing being coded for also changes. so u have
atcgccg, which is coding for an ENTIRELY different protien altogether, leading to entirely different phenotypes. {and yes this CAN create a new species as the traist can make it possible that the new breed can not sexually create offspring with its parent breed, if u wanna define species that way}, effectively creating a new breed without messing with the chromosomal number, the so called macro evolution.

furthermore, messing with the stop codon can also produce different protiens.

furthermore, the teleomere can me damaged or mutated to directly add molecules on to the initial code as well as forcing more than one base in between the dna where initially only one was present, changing the enitre alleale structure.

i guess u wud have to read sum books on it to really understand, but the creationist definitions of "information" are false, as they fail to take into account "coding" or translation. Tbh, too long, didn't read.

I have textbooks I need to read right now lol

Originally posted by leonheartmm
...{and yes this CAN create a new species as the traist can make it possible that the new breed can not sexually create offspring with its parent breed, if u wanna define species that way}...

Uhhh...

Yeah, that'd be me.

Originally posted by Mindset
Mutated retards.

TX3vRqSBoBk

Originally posted by King Kandy
The number of possible single base pairs is very, very limited. Inserting one where it doesn't belong can cause coding for entirely different traits than the codon it originated from.

In theory it could but it would mean that all the several different mechanisms of DNA repair would have to fail in order for the incorrect proteins to be permanently coded for.

DNA repair mechanisms fix about a million of these mutations every day in the average human.

Originally posted by One Free Man
please tell me again or post a link to where you told me before. I apologize for ignoring you, you are still on my ignore list so that I can only read your uneducated trolling when I feel like it.

Is that so? It sounds like you are the troll here. You are now on my ignore list. BTW I never read anything that someone who is on my ignore list has to say.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that so? It sounds like you are the troll here. You are now on my ignore list. BTW I never read anything that someone who is on my ignore list has to say.

You should craft yourself a badge saying that.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think his point is that the the information being inserted isn't new. It's just an already existing base pair or codon here and there either into the introns or exons on a DNA strand.

That's like saying a new book isn't new because it uses the same old 26 charters, a, b, c and so forth.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ok i think theres a lot of ignorance in these boards about what counts as INFORMATION at the genetic level.

the dna is made of only FOUR bases{i.e. four molecular monomers}. however, the reason we call it a CODE is because it the protien's produced from transcription of these bases are produced based on their PATTERNS. that argument is analogous to " well there isnt any INFORMATION "added" to the dvd seein as its only made up of two components. zeros and ones".

the four bases are represented by A T G C.

the second thing to consider is the stop codon. this is a set of three corresponding bases on the mRNA which STOP traslation of the dna code at a certain point so that a finite set of translated code is carried into the cell ribosomes where the base configuration{code} on the mRNA can be used by the tRNA to band together the coded protien from{after all without it all you wud really have is the entire length of the dna being copied and lots of dna being made in the ribosomes instead of parts of the dna which code for certain protiens} the code carried by it.

now consider a part of the dna

atgccga if even one mutation changes the "first g into a c" the entire CODE changes and the thing being coded for also changes. so u have
atcgccg, which is coding for an ENTIRELY different protien altogether, leading to entirely different phenotypes. {and yes this CAN create a new species as the traist can make it possible that the new breed can not sexually create offspring with its parent breed, if u wanna define species that way}, effectively creating a new breed without messing with the chromosomal number, the so called macro evolution.

furthermore, messing with the stop codon can also produce different protiens.

furthermore, the teleomere can me damaged or mutated to directly add molecules on to the initial code as well as forcing more than one base in between the dna where initially only one was present, changing the enitre alleale structure.

i guess u wud have to read sum books on it to really understand, but the creationist definitions of "information" are false, as they fail to take into account "coding" or translation.



Generally insertions or deletions are repaired and don't result in any kind of problematic mutation. There's also the fact that the mutation would have to occur to the gamete which went on to fertilize the egg cell. That gamete would have to have had no form of repair done to the DNA strand plus it would then have to produce a viable embryo for it to produce a "new species". All of which is a virtually impossible sequence of events to occur.

Regardless, DNA insertions and deletions are not the main problem with regards to replication of DNA.

While genetics was never my strong point in my forensics masters I know a bit or 2 about it. Although most of that was analysis of STR's and PCR.

I've forgotten a fair bit of the generally useless basics of DNA replication too though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are now on my ignore list. BTW I never read anything that someone who is on my ignore list has to say.

0_JyoK8RVPE
2:30-2:37

Originally posted by jaden101
Generally insertions or deletions are repaired and don't result in any kind of problematic mutation. There's also the fact that the mutation would have to occur to the gamete which went on to fertilize the egg cell. That gamete would have to have had no form of repair done to the DNA strand plus it would then have to produce a viable embryo for it to produce a "new species". All of which is a virtually impossible sequence of events to occur.

Regardless, DNA insertions and deletions are not the main problem with regards to replication of DNA.

While genetics was never my strong point in my forensics masters I know a bit or 2 about it. Although most of that was analysis of STR's and PCR.

I've forgotten a fair bit of the generally useless basics of DNA replication too though.

1. virtually impossible in one go, give it all the creatures on earth and billions of chances............

2. there are certain technicalities in grasses etc which allow them to bypass a few f those steps

3. doesnt apply to asexual reproduction

4. the point i was making was about the fallacious claim that "no new information is added to the dna"

Originally posted by jaden101
In theory it could but it would mean that all the several different mechanisms of DNA repair would have to fail in order for the incorrect proteins to be permanently coded for.

DNA repair mechanisms fix about a million of these mutations every day in the average human.
Wait you're claiming that insertions only happen in theory? The reason we know about them at all is because there are cases where it happened.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. virtually impossible in one go, give it all the creatures on earth and billions of chances............

2. there are certain technicalities in grasses etc which allow them to bypass a few f those steps

3. doesnt apply to asexual reproduction

4. the point i was making was about the fallacious claim that "no new information is added to the dna"

Not really applicaple given that this entire debate was triggered by the odd notion that a human can be subject so a DNA mutation and suddenly become a new species.



Deary me. Yes, I know that. Do people insist on always taking posts out of the context of the discussion? We're talking about these mutations creating entirely new and viable species because of a insertion/deletion etc. Do you know of any documented cases of this happening? Because I certainly don't.

Originally posted by jaden101
Not really applicaple given that this entire debate was triggered by the odd notion that a human can be subject so a DNA mutation and suddenly become a new species.

lol, only on the internet

Originally posted by Bardock42

It's like saying a new song isn't new because all the notes existed before and the potential was always there. Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's like saying a new book isn't new because it uses the same old 26 charters, a, b, c and so forth.


Yeah, you never look at posts of people on your ignore list.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you never look at posts of people on your ignore list.


Can you tell if he does or does not have you on ignore?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can you tell if he does or does not have you on ignore?

He said so a while back.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He said so a while back.


But it's possible he took you off. I'm just playing devil's advocate: Shakya may or may not be a hypocrit.