I thought you could be Dutch – your name suggests it – for instance, the artist:
http://www.toosvanholstein.nl/index-eng.html
This would not be
your Grandmother, by
any chance … ?
Are you a Biochemist?

Should I reply or not??? For sure it wasn’t my intend to have the last word in these threads!!!
Though I would like to express I did support request 15 too at Comment policy if #137 would have not been earlier. And sure I liked #130. Thanks a lot, Rkt! In both threads!
So much it recalled to me, #130 I mean. No idea we had for the greatest Dutch, though I remember the greatest from Belgium . That, and comments of John Kwok, got again in my mind all kind of remembrances of my youth. Like Linaeus. And therefore a look at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus . Very nice to see him to be that international! And even at the base of these postings. Many of my schoolremembrances came to life again too. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel . As did – new info added, and by its clarity more than that – the post http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/ . Thank you for beside of all the new, bringing me back to my youth, visiting the museum Evoluon – Eindhoven, the Netherlands – where my father showed me the huge example of DNA, very new for that time, and – even just by its size – very impressive too! The drawings in some way look like it
Rkt is right, here in Europe creationism isn’t an item at al. Though you will find this kind of behaviour here in no less % I’m afraid [and the reason I came in]. To my relief being it a comparatively tiny minority nevertheless.
Concluding I would like to express my valuation of the mentioned post of Carl Zimmer as well as the one of Rkt I especially enjoyed. Of course some other comments and posts no less. But these in particular. Again, thank you very much!

go see Carl’s interview of Paul ehrlich. Secularists, communists, materialists, Obama, Darwinists, extreme greens all believe in redistribution of resources. top down fascist control. conservative Republicans believe the pie can expand and favor freedom and free markets. Obama thinks he has a right to your stuff. he believes government has first dibs on your income and you don’t deserve any of your own income, the government is the source of your wealth.

as opposed to conservative republicanism which believes that we are endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty and property ( the party of John Locke).

since Carl chose on his own to interview ehrlich I would lay odds on his not voting Romney. and I mentioned ehrlich before I saw at the loom where Carl had interviewed dr doom. pattern recognition. and ehrlich made some famous predictions about running out of stuff and prices and was 100% wrong … just like MALTHUS BEFORE HIM. and Malthusian thought forms the basis for Darwinism.

Darwin and Wallace were inspired by the demographic arguments made by Malthus in his “Essay on Population” which led them to derive independently of each other, Natural Selection.

As a Conservative Republican, I don’t see how one can connect the dots between Malthus, Darwin, Wallace and Obama. (Nor would I even try.) Whom Carl Zimmer opts to vote for in the November, 2012 election is his decision to make, not mine. Your argument (@ 133) borders on insanity.

Check yourself into a clinic soon please to attend to your mental health. Your comments here demonstrate just how out of touch with reality you are.

go back and retread my 128 comment. darwin himself says he is getting his guidance from Malthus and the historians at UC Berkeley, who are far more familiar with Darwin and his thinking confirm Darwin’s dependence on Malthus. in other words you just make stuff up when evidence shows Darwin to be a looney buffoon. Wallace’s thinking was similarly conditioned by allowing Malthus to guide his thinking. anyone can do a google search to see you aren’t telling the truth (again) … in this case the impact of Malthus on Darwon (and Wallace).

which in turn shows what a flimsy house of cards Darwinists rely on … perhaps explains why Carl won’t respond to Casey after he asked for a response.

and you used the term “ecology”. the father of that term is none other than Haeckel … the guy Ken Miller relied on to propagate lies to tens of thousands of biology students. the idea that we are all going to die if a spotted owl is disturbed in nesting or some rat is upset somewhere comes from Haeckel and his really weird religious faith. hard to say who is more divorced from reality, you or Haeckel. at least on Shapiro’s blog they have your number so the damage you do to science is limited there.
so what do you think is the likelihood Carl voted for Obama? price of gas is high and Obama tanked the economy.
quote mining would be using. small set of words out of context. I am not a creationist, claiming I am one shows how vacuous your thinking is and the quote fromDarwin came with a full explanation fromUC Berkeley history folks who actually know Darwin. are they creationists now as well?

anothern darwin/Malthus influenced leftist is the imbecile Paul ehrlich (population bomb) whose famous predictions all proved false:
In 1968 Paul Erlich published The Population Bomb, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” Demographers called for “Zero Population Growth,” and China established a one-child-per-couple law to control its population growth. Other quotes from Erlich: “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” (1990) “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” (1992).

Stephen Jay Gould grossly misinterpreted the phylogenetic relationships of some of the Burgess Shale Fauna in his book “Wonderful Life” and also erred in his misinterpretation of the measurement of human skulls by a 19th Century Philadelphia-based physician, Samuel George Morton, which he cited in his book “The Mismeasure of Man”. Neither failure should detract from his importance as one of the most provocative – and innovative – thinkers in evolutionary biology during the latter half of the 20th Century. What you have cited regarding Malthus is irrelevant towards explaining how Darwin and Wallace stumbled independently upon Natural Selection. (Nor does the failure of his London “prediction” demolish the important demographic arguments in “Essay” which inspired Darwin and Wallace to conceive of Natural Selection independently of each other.) As for James Shapiro’s blog, I’ve noted there that I don’t have substantial knowledge of molecular biology to comment on some of the more specific aspects of Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”. But Shapiro has erred substantially in his understanding of the history of science with regards to Darwin and Wallace and the relevance of population thinking towards evolutionary biology. Nor does he understand the relevance of certain aspects of evolutionary ecology like the Red Queen. Again, Shapiro is merely a once great scientist who has become a pale reflection of his former self.

Instead of demonstrating to all of us here how good a creationist you are by quote mining, instead learn something genuine about biology by reading the articles posted here:

http://www.carlzimmer.com

and also delve into Berkeley’s magnificient online resource on biological evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

You can do both while you seek the mental health treatment that you are so obviously in dire need of.

you>How you can tie an observation of Thomas Malthus with Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and the ongoing London Olympics is not only risible and ridiculous, but offers more proof of your most bizarre mental state. ”

do you see now? or are you still in the dark? Malthus famously predicted London would be dark for lack of whale oil and he was flat wrong and this idea is the premise behind Darwinism. personal attacks and failure to admit yournlackmof knowledge has been duly noted at the Shapiro blog. when Carl backs your action his is laying down a marker his EDGE of evolution knowledge as well. would be interested to see if Carl ever backed the Darwinist supporter and spreader of false information Ken Miller. expert at the Dover trial.

and lack of resources explains liberal thought as well in more than one way

Since you like to post links, then here’s one for you:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_14

As I noted elsewhere, it isn’t surprising that both Darwin and Wallace, independently of each other, conceived of Natural Selection after reading Malthus’ “Essay on Population”. As I noted elsewhere, it was inevitable that someone – in this case two people – would stumble upon Natural Selection. What you’ve written is mere intellectual nonsense that has no bearing whatsoever with regards to biology. (As someone who calls himself a Conservative, I understand and appreciate this far better than what I have seen posted here at The Loom courtesy of your intellectually-challenged mind.)

As toos has noted (@ 127), “Do you really think by repeating all this over and over, you would gain in credibility?”

The mere fact that you need to repeat yourself again and again, using the very same words each time, should suggest to any objective reader that yours is a delusional mind in dire need of mental health treatment. Bid The Loom farewell and get that treatment immediately please.