Chromosome challenge

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Oh, this is just excellent. Please explain more about your theory of DNA being reprogrammed, it's extremely amusing to read. Tell us what the "red headed callous" in our DNA would look like.

Imagine what Galileo faced when The Church confront his thesis!

Meanwhile, I'm waiting on the source information on that cranium.....

(Not here in 20 minutes I'm going to bed).

Interesting that you choose to reference what Galileo went through, seeing as how evolutionary science actually *is* very analagous to Galileo's discoveries, what with the religious folk fighting soooooo hard to defeat science with faith.

It came to mind while I was on the toilet reading: "Galactic Alignment: The Transformation of Consciousness According to Mayan, Egyptian and Vedic Tradition" by John Major Jenkins

This is what was written in the introduction:

Galaxia Nuncius
(A Message from the Galaxy)

The phrase "Galaxia Nuncius" (Message from the Galaxy) follows the lead of two great pioneers: Galileo and Oliver Reiser. Galileo's seminal work, Sidereus Nuncius (Message from the Stars), is now recognized as a paradigm-shattering breakthrough, even though it was condemned when it was written.

Have fun with Reiserian Cosmecology: Galactic Alignments and Evolution (Chapter 20). 😉

Hey, I love astronomy and ancient history titles! 😀

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Originally posted by: Terumo
No, source information. Dig site and what else was found in the excavation. It's not symmentrical, indicating it's either suffered trauma or a genetic defect.

Dig.

Actually, Cro-Magnon 1 is in remarkably good condition for a 30,000 year old fossil.

Actually, not. If you knew anything about bone structure it's not symmentrical. That "M" skull indicates something else caused the deformity -- and it occured while alive (not an affect of time). I also would like to know the source of the maxilla pitting (which can indicate a disease process).

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Terumo
Now since introductions have been made, let's get down to some real studying and learning -- not copying and pasting links.

This is an excellent argument about the genetic issues of our ancestory, but makes some errors. I'm wondering if any of you Talkorigin types can pick them out (now you're suppose to be all learnt in Evolution, so you're suppose to pick out the logical fallacies contained).

But here read this much of the argument (highlighted and rebuttal parts are mine for emphasis).....

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm

That's not a peer-reviewed article or even a good review article from a scientific journal.

DMD appears to be a vanity press concerned with creationism issues.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Let's try an actual scientific article next time.

It need not be one, he did a better job defending his view than any of you. I give him credit for CONTENT, you guys lack.

Instead of expanding on that topic and ask the questions to make this more educational, you're more interested in saving face. Typical of folks who are out of their element and have nothing to go on.

 

[Peter]

Well you got a ton of pointers to content right up there, which you chose to ignore because you know it won't fit your view of the world.

Also, you left my question unanswered: Is the Earth flat? Yes or no? If No, then how come the unquestionable Bible has it flat, with pictures?

Also, was Galileo right? Yes or No? If you say No here, then explain why the (current) Pope admitted he was right after all?

No further weaseling, please. Answers.

 

[Terumo]

Okay, took the time to find it myself....

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/h...gins/ha/cromagnon.html

Had a fungal infection of the face so that explains the pitting (it also must've hurt like hell, due to the nerve and blood supply of bones. Perhaps it even affected the facial nerves). But it still doesn't address the asymmentrical shape of it's skull. And yes, the sag suture is closed, indicating the skull is < than 25 years-old (when it closes).

But will try to find out more about the reasons for the warped head as that's not normal.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Now since introductions have been made, let's get down to some real studying and learning -- not copying and pasting links.

Thanks. Now you've said enough that we no longer need to assume you are an idiot...we can be quite certain at this point.

This is an excellent argument about the genetic issues of our ancestory, but makes some errors. I'm wondering if any of you Talkorigin types can pick them out (now you're suppose to be all learnt in Evolution, so you're suppose to pick out the logical fallacies contained).

Well, the first problem with this article, of course, is that it is pseudo-science. This author is working from his assumption that the bible is true (in his interpretation, anyway) and trying to find data points that he can selectively point to.

Oh. Didn't you realize that we're dealing with a Creationist article?

Anyway, I'll leave his argument aside after linking to his page. More interesting are your responses.

This one in particular:

[Terumo: and they don't factor in disease factors and it's effects on sub-populations over time. Like a person would gain callouses working with their hands, our ancestors would've had a "red haired" callous that could've eventually be passed onto the gene pool over time. [/quote]

I admit it. I was wrong. While Terumo may or may not belong to some of the other Loon classifications I tried to put her in, she is, most certainly, trying to argue a version of Lamark-derived evolutionary theory. I didn't realize her type was still around.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Ironic, this, from someone who had just said "How did he conclude this fact? How can he assume that..." What's the reasoning for this lame ad hoc explanation, one so poorly written that I had to read it several times just to be sure Terumo wasn't stupid enough to seriously advocate lamarckian evolution?

I did read it a number of times...and she is advocating a Lamarkian idea (albiet one modified with a smattering of simplified genetic ideas.) She also, if you didn't catch it, was actually critiqueing a Creationist article without realizing it. Try this link for more of that particular author's writing.

Edit: I really should read more before posting. Not only did she forward a bastardized Lamarkian view, she followed it up by mentioning that she is reading John Major Jenkins, a scam artist in the Carlos Casteneda mode.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
Terumo: how in the world can limited data sets equal an "95% confidence interval of 400,000-1,300,000" years? That's like taking water and assuming that it'll weigh the same as ice, water and vapor based on measuring only ice weight. Our technology is rather limited in dating fines very accurately to assume such dates are factual. We can only assume, and to assume it's not a "95% confidence interval".]

LMAO!

The Student's T-Test.

It is the basics of precision in science. How in the world can you read scientific literature and not understand one of the most basic statistical calculations? It is a very elegant calculation that tells you how precise your data is together, if it was extrapolated into a Gaussian Curve. Even if they had "limited data sets," the t-test can still pump out the 95% confidence interval, and give the relevant t-stat. As evidenced by their values, they obtained a significant result.

If their measurements are wrong, then what are they? Thus, what are their systematic errors?

If their confidence intervals are wrong, then what is wrong with the statisitical analysis?

Your questioning of

Originally posted by: Terumo
how in the world can limited data sets equal an "95% confidence interval of 400,000-1,300,000" years?

reveals just how very little scientific understanding you claim to have. Then further to "dumb" it down, shows how you don't have a clue about the Student's T-Test.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Terumo
Now since introductions have been made, let's get down to some real studying and learning -- not copying and pasting links.

This is an excellent argument about the genetic issues of our ancestory, but makes some errors. I'm wondering if any of you Talkorigin types can pick them out (now you're suppose to be all learnt in Evolution, so you're suppose to pick out the logical fallacies contained).

But here read this much of the argument (highlighted and rebuttal parts are mine for emphasis).....

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm

That's not a peer-reviewed article or even a good review article from a scientific journal.

DMD appears to be a vanity press concerned with creationism issues.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Let's try an actual scientific article next time.

It need not be one

If you can't tell the difference between a Creationist web site and a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal, I may have to doubt the qualifications you've asserted for yourself.

Instead of expanding on that topic

I confess that I was happy to see your post before I read the article, because I thought you'd finally decided to participate in a substantial discussion, but your post was just another one of your attempts at diverting the conversation so you can continue to avoid the questions you've been asked.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: abj13
It is a very elegant calculation that tells you how precise your data is together, if it was extrapolated into a Gaussian Curve. Even if they had "limited data sets," the t-test can still pump out the 95% confidence interval, and give the relevant t-stat. As evidenced by their values, they obtained a significant result.

Equations are only as good as the input. Junk in = junk out = little evidence + confidence level.

In other words: equations can be fudged to be forced to work on the bias of the person doing the calculations. There is no standard to rule out bias if the input is biased in the first place.

Even Einstein was plagued by that problem.

So, limited data in = limited data out = no 95% confidence level. Computations based on bias = computations expolated IN bias. It's like saying meta-analysis is original factual research because a quick search brought up what the researcher wanted to see. :roll eyes:

If their measurements are wrong, then what are they? Thus, what are their systematic errors?

Input.

If their confidence intervals are wrong, then what is wrong with the statisitical analysis?

Output.

Your questioning of

Originally posted by: Terumo
how in the world can limited data sets equal an "95% confidence interval of 400,000-1,300,000" years?

reveals just how very little scientific understanding you claim to have. Then further to "dumb" it down, shows how you don't have a clue about the Student's T-Test.

I believe in Occam's Razor, Abj. Are you saying that Occam's Razor is wrong, and that the most simplist solution doesn't = the best answer?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: dgevert

Ironic, this, from someone who had just said "How did he conclude this fact? How can he assume that..." What's the reasoning for this lame ad hoc explanation, one so poorly written that I had to read it several times just to be sure Terumo wasn't stupid enough to seriously advocate lamarckian evolution?

I did read it a number of times...and she is advocating a Lamarkian idea (albiet one modified with a smattering of simplified genetic ideas.) She also, if you didn't catch it, was actually critiqueing a Creationist article without realizing it. Try this link for more of that particular author's writing.

Edit: I really should read more before posting. Not only did she forward a bastardized Lamarkian view, she followed it up by mentioning that she is reading John Major Jenkins, a scam artist in the Carlos Casteneda mode.

In the effort to "save face" guess what was Gilby's error was:

1. I'm no proponent of any Evolutionist or Creationist POV.

2. I knew he was arguing against a creationist POV. That didn't matter. What mattered was his critical thinking in what he was arguing about (and to bring this whole trainwreck back on topic). His conclusions didn't factor in other variables. He assumed because a genetic component was x-amount of years old it means a trait HAD to come later, not earlier. His problem is he doesn't know if there was redheaded or blonde early hominids (no evidence exist to prove his point, hair and eye color is unfortunately not saved by the erosive effects of time). That albinos exist, there's a good chance a genetic "oopsie" could've occured 1,000,000 years ago that produced redheaded hominids in Africa - or - a long pattern of adaptation (and breeding) of protein starved bands (or genetics can be influenced by environmental factors AND nutritional deficienies -- folic acid is but one that if absent causes horrible fetal deformities and fetal death) could've long passed on that recessive gene. Being Asia was further away, it didn't spread as it was one l-o-n-g walk, and the recessive gene had to find a match to produce a redheaded offspring -- a stray traveler to a remote area couldn't exploit the remote area's "gene pool" as much as a band of hominids that settled in enclaves. Very basic deduction.

3. That you didn't know John Major Jenkins and his work tells me your assumption (again to "save face") is out of ignorance and/or stupidity (what did you do run to talkorigins to "know" him too)? Instead of bad mouthing what you don't understand let alone read, how about grabbing Jenkin's book and read it. And you can also hit the bookshelves and grab "Tao's of Physics" and "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra, and "Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time & Light" by Leonard Shlain. But before you do, grab Hegel's primer, as you'll be needing it. 😀 😀 😀

In order for Science to survive and not go the way of the dodo, Science must understand and be willing to expand it's very structure to adapt to a changing world -- it must evolve.

You guys are instead, burying your heads in the sand and getting reamed in the process. All because of convention is more important than common sense.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Gilby
Thanks. Now you've said enough that we no longer need to assume you are an idiot...we can be quite certain at this point.

That you would in the first place is the error in your whole view.

Well, the first problem with this article, of course, is that it is pseudo-science. This author is working from his assumption that the bible is true (in his interpretation, anyway) and trying to find data points that he can selectively point to.

Actually, if you read the article he was trying to prove how the Neandertal evolved to have red hair. Nowhere did he mentioned God did so.

That you didn't even see that means you're talking out of your butt here.

And what you guys are doing is equal junk science == copying and pasting links from other sources and then trying to pass it off as being "learnt".

Oh. Didn't you realize that we're dealing with a Creationist article?

Did you realize he was claiming how Neandertals could evolve to having red hair?

Nice try in "face saving" (this is what they do: once you destroy a bit of evidence of there's, they throw it out like trash and claim the author wasn't important. Then they spend 20 or so points claiming YOU'RE stupid, because they have nothing else to go on). 😀

Worse, you don't realize I argue both sides of Evolution and Creation -- all the time! 😀

I admit it. I was wrong. While Terumo may or may not belong to some of the other Loon classifications I tried to put her in, she is, most certainly, trying to argue a version of Lamark-derived evolutionary theory. I didn't realize her type was still around.

And now folks understand how in left field our TCOE members are: they needed some label to cling to to define the impossible -- the unknown. But, Gilby, I don't promote any Evolution/Creation theory so your idea is, again, wrong. You're chasing shadows (maybe you need to consult Jung's "Shadow theory" to "find yourself" then). 😀

Bye, bye (and you're right you should leave, because all this just touches the tip of the iceberg). 😀

BTW, Talkorigins is easy to dispute, and from the very branch Science evolved from too -- Here, clueless a clue:

http://www.hegel.net/en/eb1911.htm

 

[dgevert]

BTW, Talkorigins is easy to dispute, and from the very branch Science evolved from too -- Here, clueless a clue:

http://www.hegel.net/en/eb1911.htm

Gee, guess I forgot who I was dealing with. I clicked on that link expecting to see evidence - or at least an attempt at evidence - against talkorigins.

But like I said, I forgot who I was dealing with.

And Terumo has the nerve to bring up Occam's Razor earlier? LMAO...

You guys are instead, burying your heads in the sand and getting reamed in the process. All because of convention is more important than common sense.

Who is burying their heads in the sand again? I forgot. Remind me again, who is repeatedly ignoring evidence and references posted in this thread? Who is attempting to poison the well by ignoring any reference simply because of the server it's on?

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the problem isn't your level of education or intelligence. I think you're a liar...

 

[Peter]

Terumo: As I expected, you gave no answers, not even to those asked in your own claimed field of expertise, just more hilarious bullshit. Now we've cornered you enough that you chose to resort to saying math isn't actually working, just to defend your "point". Your knowledge of these things is zero, which is obvious to everyone except you.

I'm not worried - human evolution has always favored brain usage.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
In other words: equations can be fudged to be forced to work on the bias of the person doing the calculations. There is no standard to rule out bias if the input is biased in the first place.

So where is this bias? Another lame attempt at dancing around the response. If they biased their data sets, how did they?

I then suggest you pick up Harding, Rosalind M. et al, 1997, "Archaic African and Asian Lineages in the Genetic Ancestry of Modern Humans," Am. Journal of Human Genetics, 60:772-789, and read it if you are going to question it.

Or is this going to be another run and hide type of response?

Originally posted by: Terumo
I believe in Occam's Razor, Abj. Are you saying that Occam's Razor is wrong, and that the most simplist solution doesn't = the best answer?

LOL! You've taken a nice force fed definition of Ockham's Razor. What did you read that in some "biased" textbook? Please read the translation of what was originally said.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."
or
"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'."

The simplest "solution" is not the best solution, since you are assuming that what was originally intended. Its intended that the simplest explanations may lead to the best answer, but it may be necessary to include items that may complicate the idea to support the evidence.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter
Terumo: As I expected, you gave no answers, not even to those asked in your own claimed field of expertise, just more hilarious bullshit. Now we've cornered you enough that you chose to resort to saying math isn't actually working, just to defend your "point". Your knowledge of these things is zero, which is obvious to everyone except you.

I'm not worried - human evolution has always favored brain usage.

Peter what is your issue? You've taken a thread and made it into a toilet with these personal attacks. If you can't add to the discussion, how about taking your balls and go play elsewhere.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: abj13
So where is this bias? Another lame attempt at dancing around the response. If they biased their data sets, how did they?

That you can't even acknowledge it is where you erred royally. You're more interested in defending a belief like a lemming determined to jump off a cliff. That dogmatic persuit is clouding your judgement.

Bias exists at anytime and anywhere. That you wish to ignore doesn't mean it's ignored -- it means you have ulterior motived.

I then suggest you pick up Harding, Rosalind M. et al, 1997, "Archaic African and Asian Lineages in the Genetic Ancestry of Modern Humans," Am. Journal of Human Genetics, 60:772-789, and read it if you are going to question it.

I'm not interested in reading an article you may finally have read, and join you on your "Ah!" campaign.

Or is this going to be another run and hide type of response?

I'm right here, abj, I'm not running away, but you don't show up often though.

LOL! You've taken a nice force fed definition of Ockham's Razor. What did you read that in some "biased" textbook? Please read the translation of what was originally said.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."
or
"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'."

The simplest "solution" is not the best solution, since you are assuming that what was originally intended. Its intended that the simplest explanations may lead to the best answer, but it may be necessary to include items that may complicate the idea to support the evidence.

I'll get to your premise soon as I take a nap (been a l-o-n-g day).

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Terumo
I'm not interested in reading an article you may finally have read, and join you on your "Ah!" campaign.

Ah, so you've never read it. Then how can you question:

Originally posted by: Terumo
"The expected TMRCA [time most recent common ancestor-grm] and also the ages of the mutations were estimated for each population as well as for the world data set. Estimating the TMRCA of the world data set gave a value of 750,000 years with a 95% confidence interval of 400,000-1,300,000, encompassing all of the TMRCA values from individual populations." (Harding et al, 1997, p. 778)

[Terumo: how in the world can limited data sets equal an "95% confidence interval of 400,000-1,300,000" years? That's like taking water and assuming that it'll weigh the same as ice, water and vapor based on measuring only ice weight. Our technology is rather limited in dating fines very accurately to assume such dates are factual. We can only assume, and to assume it's not a "95% confidence interval".

How can you question their confidence, when you've never have actually read their freakin' paper? Its astounding how many times your arguments run into a train wreck of logic. At least you are consistenly bad, I'd hate to see it stoop to a new low.

 

[Kniteman77]

I think its all just a matter of opinion.

Many things that are true today will be proven false tomorow and vice versa.

Some things that are completley and totally improbable are in fact true, and some things that are completley and totally evident as truth are in fact false. Most things in science today (especially in the feild you're talking about) are 'theories' that get touted up as truths. Scientific theories are not more or less correct than religiouns or secular theories, all of them are just propositions with some type of evidence to support their claim. It really gets on my nerves when people take scientific theories and throw them around as absolute truth simply because they have the word 'scientific' in front of them. Its still just a theory no matter how much evidince you have.

So that being said, I am a creationist, I love to have people test what I believe. I find genetics very interesting and I'm majoring in Biomedical Engineering. I didnt mean the above statments in specific refrance to this thread or anything contained within it, in fact I didnt read most of it. This is just what I wanted to contribute to the overall subject at hand.

I think the subject of Evolution vs Creation is really something everyone has to decide on their own. There's evidence for both sides of it. I hope everyone can respect eachothers decisions too. My belief is no more right than anyone elses no matter how true I belive it to be, thats the beauty of free will.

If all you evolutionist people arent secure enough in your own beliefs to go on beliving it when everyone else dosent believe the same thing, I pitty you.

Same thing for all you creationists out there.

I look forward to seeing what people have to say about my comments 🙂

Make up your own mind.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Kniteman77

So that being said, I am a creationist, I love to have people test what I believe. I find genetics very interesting and I'm majoring in Biomedical Engineering.

You would be in a good position to answer this question then. Regardless of whether it is true or false, can you suggest anyway in which creationism is *useful* ?

Can you think of any problem where the application of the principles of creationism would lead to a solution ?

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: Terumo
[predicted weaseling]

Just answer my two questions, and I'll be gone.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Peter

Originally posted by: Terumo
[predicted weaseling]

Just answer my two questions, and I'll be gone.

Predicted trolling.

What next, Peter, stalking next?

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Peter

Originally posted by: Terumo
[predicted weaseling]

Just answer my two questions, and I'll be gone.

Predicted trolling.

What next, Peter, stalking next?

Trolling? It's trolling to ask someone to answer the questions posed to him (or her)?

Come on. I've been following this thread via email notification for a few days and I gotta say Terumo, you haven't given a straight answer to anyone's questions. You've given plenty of rhetoric and you insulted just about everyone that doesn't see things your way, but you have yet to actually support your views.

That said, 'evolution vs. creation' doesn't even make that much sense. Shouldn't the topic really be 'abiogenesis vs. creation'? At least then, both sides are on an equal playing field, considering neither has any evidence to back it up. Creation deals with how life came to be on this planet. Evolution deals with how species are created. Granted, if you stretch it, you can take evolution all the way back to a single cell floating around in the ocean some billions of years ago, but evolution makes no effort to explain where life started or how, nor should it.

Even if life was created as the book of Genesis would have us believe, why can't evolution still work? Why can't the species created by God in the garden adapt and change, eventually sprouting entirely new species? Is it because God had to have created everything, and a new species would be something not created by God? That makes no sense, as every living thing is created by God (going from a religious standpoint). When you get pregnant, it is God creating a new life. If God creates new life enough times, and there are random points of mutation and adaptation, then God will have eventually created a new species.

Anyone that thinks evolution goes against everything in the bible just doesn't know their science well enough.

Creation versus Abiogenesis...that's the real debate...imo anyways.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Kniteman77
Some things that are completley and totally improbable are in fact true, and some things that are completley and totally evident as truth are in fact false. Most things in science today (especially in the feild you're talking about) are 'theories' that get touted up as truths. Scientific theories are not more or less correct than religiouns or secular theories, all of them are just propositions with some type of evidence to support their claim. It really gets on my nerves when people take scientific theories and throw them around as absolute truth simply because they have the word 'scientific' in front of them. Its still just a theory no matter how much evidince you have.

You don't appear to understand what a scientific theory is. It's a completely different concept from the term "theory" in vernacular English (your religious or secular theories above.) Scientific theories are not uncertain ideas that may some day become facts. Just because gravity is a theory doesn't put it on the same ground as the flat earth "theory" (using the verncular meaning of theory.) Facts and theories are completely different concepts in science. A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts that can be tested.

There's evidence for both sides of it.

Actually, that's the essential problem with creationism: it's unfalsifiable. It makes no predictions that could be proved false. Any evidence fits the myth that an omnipotent, omniscient entity created the universe, because such an entity could've done anything. Perhaps the universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of its current age. You cannot test such a statement.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

Trolling? It's trolling to ask someone to answer the questions posed to him (or her)?

It's trolling and board stalking when the debate gets dragged into other threads.

Come on. I've been following this thread via email notification for a few days and I gotta say Terumo, you haven't given a straight answer to anyone's questions. You've given plenty of rhetoric and you insulted just about everyone that doesn't see things your way, but you have yet to actually support your views.

I gave my view and I defend my view, but as much as others do, their view is only good as mine. Which leaves us to a draw. Which is fine by me. 🙂

BTW, I don't insult those who don't dish out first. Once they do, I don't turn the other cheek.

That said, 'evolution vs. creation' doesn't even make that much sense. Shouldn't the topic really be 'abiogenesis vs. creation'? At least then, both sides are on an equal playing field, considering neither has any evidence to back it up. Creation deals with how life came to be on this planet. Evolution deals with how species are created. Granted, if you stretch it, you can take evolution all the way back to a single cell floating around in the ocean some billions of years ago, but evolution makes no effort to explain where life started or how, nor should it.

TCOE believers have other motives and it's not just with "proving" Evolution. It's an effort by non-believers of any religion to protest that God had nothing to do with our creation. I've watched how a campaign launched in alt.atheism came to a local forum to cause mischief, all because they wanted to show the South and Christians they're wrong. They remained for months just to cause trouble. That type of Evolution "bible thumping" of these TCOE incarnates does not help the debate, either. It's become a political issue now, along the lines of Abortion & Choice.