For The Love Of Port

Eric, I think you have a good point. I have been trying to do some research on Darwin over the last two days, including the development of fossils, parrots, natural selection, and so on. To give justice to a full study of the Darwinian side of the question appears to be a very big job. While my present position remains that there are merits on both sides and they both warrant a full exploration, your idea may be the better way to pursue it.

I also like Eric's suggestion, providing what we are drinking is properly evolved Port, which is red or (in an emergency) white.

I disagree. I would much rather read Ray's effort to defend the other side of the coin. Until that is done, this thread is not complete and Darwin will not lie still.



When we are done with that aspect of the discussion, we can begin an entirely new thread on the merits of scientific evidence of climate change vs. those who dispute the findings. Derek will then take the state to argue both sides of that conundrum.

Gradualism vs. punctuated equilibria ...

Roy Hersh wrote:When we are done with that aspect of the discussion, we can begin an entirely new thread on the merits of scientific evidence of climate change vs. those who dispute the findings.

That one I'll join. As with Ray on this topic, I find that both sides of the climate change "debate" are building on far weaker foundations than they believe.

Been an interesting read so far. As long as you all keep it civil like you have, keep going. It's always interesting to read others views on things, whether I agree with all or some of it or not. The only way to learn is to listen