Sayonara

You have to be very, very careful with phrases like this. The casual reader might take this to mean that evolutionary effects within a species act randomly, and they most certainly do not. From the context of your post I think that what you mean to communicate is that the overall progress of evolution as it occurs in many species is unpredictable on large scales. Is that more or less it?

Post moved from the What makes a serial killer?, which despite its title was about the OP's own theory which made Pioneer's post a thread hijack attempt. Pioneer, don't hijack threads. You have been warned already about that. You might also want to learn the difference between offending "PC sensitivity" and being outright racist.

I demand a recount!

He must smoke more than you do.

...and neurological problems AS WELL! Who wants that man at the helm?

Cap'n Refsmmat and YT2095 in Al-Qaeda transvestites scandal! A vote for them is a vote against freedom and morality!!!!!!!

Don't take my banana away

Puppies killed so far: four.

Gilded drunk man, no vote gilded

Because of the consequences in the "true" case, presumably.

I promise to kill a puppy for each vote I receive.

Well... none. Those dictionaries are reference books for the layperson, not court-approved lexicons. I thought iNow was asking that the argument "Marriage is between a man and a woman" should be supported in some way? Otherwise you are basically taking it on faith.

I don't just mean when it's included by you. In this sort of discussion everyone needs to be very careful how they use the word "proven".

I think that the inclusion of the term "proven" is muddying the waters, and making an unfair requirement.

Step 1: People make the argument "gay marriage cannot exist because marriage is between a man and a woman". Step 2: Onus is on them to demonstrate their argument. Step 3: Profit! Yes, iNow is saying that. He is saying that because those people trying to present it as an argument have failed to fulfil Step 2 above. He is rationally, morally, and legally correct to take a sceptical view of their reasoning. I am not certain what legal status the Oxford Dictionary of Law has with regards to defining terms, but I somehow doubt that it is referred to in court rooms. I also note that it pertains to UK legislation and do not see how that is relevant to a discussion of legislation in the USA. The origin of your definitions must be consistent with the legal framework you are applying them to, or they are worthless. I don't think iNow stated this explicitly, but he certainly implied it: that is begging the question.

Or someone could just point to a part of the relevant legislation which gives the legal definition of marriage. I think this is all iNow has been asking for for what seems like weeks, and it's a perfectly reasonable request. That's not how it works. Stop being disingenuous.

For the win.

Well I don't see this being resolved without a violent bloodbath...

I suggest contacting your local police force. Tell them what you are doing and see if they will be willing to provide non-identifiable demographic data from their reports database.

It's important to understand that when we say "strong" and "weak" in terms of natural selection, we are referring to the individual's fitness in terms of its ability to pass on its genes (see Wiki article on biological fitness for a primer). This doesn't necessarily invalidate your post (although the claim that medicine is destroying the immune system is extraordinary and therefore requires extraordinary evidence), but it is an important distinction to wrap your head around if you are interested in the role of natural selection in evolution.

This isn't really evolution "going wrong". Dede's condition is apparently caused by a form of Epidermodysplasia verruciformis, a genetic mutation which causes increased susceptibility to Human papillomaviruses. IOW, the symptoms themselves (massive "bark-like" growths) are not caused by the mutation but by a viral infection. The mutation would seem to have little direct impact on fecundity, since Dede is a father of two.

I wouldn't say "hid", exactly.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/2012/ There is a film about it so it must be true. Although I don't see any sporks in the trailer.

Only if the parents deliberately make themselves gay.

Yup :-D This is because we discuss (most) things here with rigour and a certain enthusiasm for detail. You just need to factor that in when you are deciding what to post. Some people find this is too much effort and leave, but is that our loss? Those who do stay usually rapidly improve their critical and communication skills. Use of logical fallacies is against the rules, so feel free to report posts which you think qualify.