Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

Oh dear. You just gave the game away. ID is not creationism, no siree Bob!

PEPCIS:

And I NEVER said that it was. You are very strange indeed…

You used the word “creator” instead of the word “designer”. Creationism relies on a creator, while ID relies on a designer. That was how you gave the game away.

I said this once, maybe you will actually answer me why you treated me so dishonestly, but I doubt that. I said:

That’s what I like about evolutionists…they love to misrepresent their opponent’s position. I responded to YOUR STUPID CHARGE THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE CREATOR IS. So I answer you by CORRECTING you that you don’t speak of the CREATOR because ID is not concerned with proving Him. I then am charged with inserting creationism into ID??? ROFLMBO!! It was YOU who attempted to insert a “higher power” into the conversation.

So, it was YOU who introduced the concept of a higher being, yet you accused me of being the one to do that??? Please explain yourself.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Actually, my “claim” is a response to your claim that information arises spontaneously as the result of random forces operating within natural selection.

rossum:

Using my definition of information I have shown this [to actually happen].

PEPCIS:

Sorry, but all you have shown is a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. You have NOT ESTABLISHED BY REFERENCE TO ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that information actually arises by the means that you have analogized.

Gene duplication followed by mutations of one of the copies creates new information - there are now two different proteins where there was one single protein before. That is new information whatever way you measure it. It is also how we got all our different globin proteins: myoglobin, alpha-haemoglobin, beta-haemoglobin and the various different embryonic haemoglobins, zeta haemoglobin etc.

PEPCIS:

That’s a nice “just-so” story. But it is not SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of mutations (and therefore information) arising randomly.

rossum:

We have scientific evidence of random mutations, which you quoted yourself from Wikipedia. We have scientific evidence of information arising from such mutations - does the haemoglobin in your blood contain infomraiton? That arose by just such a process of duplication and modification of one copy. There are about a half a dozen or so active globins in the human genome and more globin pseudogenes.

Will you continue to simply give one “just-so” story after another??? When will you begin to show me your PROOF that these stories are scientific in nature, and not from some fairy tale?

You DO NOT HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR RANDOM MUTATIONS resulting in beneficial mutations, therefore increasing information. Your allusions to the rise of hemoglobin in the human blood-circulatory system is nothing but a “just-so” story - an after the fact story to try and make it look like it’s science. In reality, those are “just-so” stories to people who refuse to acknowledge God as the Creator and Designer of all life and life-supporting systems.

I keep on wondering when I will get a real definition from you about what information is…

 

[Leela]

Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin:
Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

Just in time for Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species, a new nationwide Zogby poll of likely voters indicates overwhelming public support for teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. The poll shows similar overwhelming support for giving students and teachers the academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.
According to Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West, the poll results may shatter some preconceptions held by those in the media about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian theory.

This thread has truned in to the usual sort of debate about evolution that we have here, but thread was started to discuss the above–that people support “teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.” What is the evidence against Darwinism theory that should be taught?

Best,
Leela

 

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

My claim is that a more accurate value of pi is not impossible. Rare, but not impossible. At least we seem to agree on that.

PEPCIS:

No, we don’t agree, because the probability is simply “out of this world.”

Do not mistake the very high improbablitities I calculated for the encyclopedia example with the actual probabilities in the real world.

I am not. I am specifically ignoring them so that I can concentrate solely on your false analogy. Most people acknowledge that any probability which exceeds 10^50 is not worth considering as possible - well, except for evolutionists bent on satisfying their non-scientific proclamations regarding evolution theory, like in your example of Pi.

rossum:

There are about 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways of making a functional Cytochrome C protein.

That’s nice. Someone like you who possesses all knowledge in the universe knows beyond any doubt that all those variants work equally well in all environments.

rossum:

Evolution only has to find one of them in order to have succeeded.

LOL do you think that evolution rests its case solely on Cytochrome c??? Puhleeze. You better have more in your arsenal besides this to prove that evolution actually occurs. All that can be established with Cytochrome C is that there are about 2.3 x 10^93 different ways of making it. One molecule with amazing elasticity. Now, if ALL molecules were the same in their construction, you might have something to this.

 

[buffalo]

This thread has truned in to the usual sort of debate about evolution that we have here, but thread was started to discuss the above–that people support “teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.” What is the evidence against Darwinism theory that should be taught?

Best,
Leela

Adaptation (micro-evolution) could be taught.

 

[PEPCIS]

Question: Are there any creationist sites which are reputable, i.e., tell the truth?

PEPCIS:

LOL That’s funny. The better question is “Are there any creationist sites which tell lies?” Why do you default to the concept that “All creationist sites lie”?

grannyh:

Could it be that de fault is in the reading of the original question?

Hmmmmmmmm…No, don’t think so. Let’s see:

Are there any creationist sites which…tell the truth?

Is the positive correlation to:

Are there any creationist sites which don’t lie?

I maintain that the better question is the one that is more positive, and does not assume immorality.

"Are there any creationist sites which tell the truth?"
"Are there any creationist sites which tell lies?"

 

[rossum]

For you to state that ID is required to recognize something that is not designed is something that you are uneccessarily imposing upon the theory.

If ID wants to be accepted as science, then it has to be science. Scientific theories can be falsified, so a scientific theory has to have a way that it can be falsified. For example, here is a quote from Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Source: On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six.
That is exactly the method that Professor Behe tried to use to show that evolution was incorrect. I am merely asking that ID gives us a way to falsify ID. Evolution has already done so, and has done so from its origin. If ID wants its place is science class then it has to be science.

This brings me back to my original point: Information cannot arise by naturalistic means.

Shannon information, Kolmogorov information and Fisher information can all arise from evolutionary processes. Since you have not provided any way to measure PEPCIS information I am unable to say whether or not that can be increased by evolution.

And on the heels of this, I am STILL WAITING for your definition for information

I have given my definition many times. I am aware that you do not agree with my definition, but I am using the standard definition that science uses. You disagreement with much of science is evident in more than just your refusal to accept the standard definition of information.

Why is it that you absolutely refuse to attend to this point?

Why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the standard scientific measures of information?

So, it was YOU who introduced the concept of a higher being, yet you accused me of being the one to do that?

It was you who used the word “creator” instead of “designer” in your post #717:

ID is not interested in pursuing WHO the Creator is, or by what powers He created by, or WHEN He did so. ID is only interested in differentiating between information and order. (Emphasis added)

ID literature is noramlly very careful not to use words like “creator”, but instead uses “designer”. To use the more religioous language would defeat the political objectives of ID.

You DO NOT HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR RANDOM MUTATIONS resulting in beneficial mutations, therefore increasing information.

I have already referred you to the Luria-Delbrück experiment. That experiment showed that random mutations (which you agreed were random) prevented the bacteria with the mutation being killed by a bacteriophage while their unmutated cousins were killed. You have an extremely strange definition of “beneficial” if you do not think that avoiding death by bacteriophage is not beneficial.

The Luria-Delbrück experiment shows that random mutations can be beneficial. How is surviving an attack by a bacteriophage not beneficial?

Someone like you who possesses all knowledge in the universe knows beyond any doubt that all those variants work equally well in all environments.

We know that many of them work in many environments because we have sequenced different Cytochrome Cs from different organisms and in general they are different and of course they all work. It is noteworthy that the Cytochrome Cs from Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes are identical.

Experiments have been done where the Cytochrome C from one organism is transferred into a different organism; in all cases the Cytochrome C has worked perfectly well in the new organism. We can easily tell this because if Cytochrome C does not work then the organism dies.

I do not posess “all knowledge in the universe”, but I do have a better awareness of what is in the scientific literature than you do. That is why I have advised you to do more research so that you can avoid obvious errors. I am trying to help you with advice. If you do not have an understanding of the scientific literature then you will not do well in a scientific argument.

Now, if ALL molecules were the same in their construction, you might have something to this.

You really do need to do more research. Every single protein can be coded for in multiple different ways. Every single protein. Have a look at the DNA code and see that the great majority of the amino acids have more than one codon so every protein has multiple different ways of being coded. That is not counting the places where one amino acid can be replaced by a chemically similar amino acid, which further increases the number of working variants. Your lack of research is again damaging your case. I did warn you.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

LOL do you think that evolution rests its case solely on Cytochrome c??? Puhleeze. You better have more in your arsenal besides this to prove that evolution actually occurs. All that can be established with Cytochrome C is that there are about 2.3 x 10^93 different ways of making it.

And one other thing. The differences in cytochrome C shake out along evolutionary lines laid out earlier on other criteria, to a very close degree of precision. And it’s not just cytochrome C. Globins give the same information, and DNA is precise to a very, very high degree of precision.

It takes a very strong resistance to reality, to deny what this says. Would you like to try it yourself?

 

[grannymh]

Hmmmmmmmm…No, don’t think so. Let’s see:

Are there any creationist sites which…tell the truth?

Is the positive correlation to:

Are there any creationist sites which don’t lie?

I maintain that the better question is the one that is more positive, and does not assume immorality.

"Are there any creationist sites which tell the truth?"
"Are there any creationist sites which tell lies?"

Hmmmmm. The only thing I have a positive correlation to is Pepsi.
Unless, you mean corollary which could be chocolate since it is assumed to be deliciously decadent. The last time I mentioned Pepsi, my head was on a platter. As Winnie the Pooh says, think, think, think.

:newidea:

Better, yet. How about you picking a question? And answering it.

I’m willing to share my Pepsi with you, if you don’t mind it in a That would be more positive than having it in your lap.


Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Monty_Arch]

No, just as the cite CLAIMED. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that MRSA evolved via random mutations.

See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 28, 2002 vol. 99 no. 11 7687-7692

*The evolutionary history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
*

To summarize: There’s vertical transmission in evolution… In organisms there are new gene variants that arise in a population through random mutation — that is, one individual experiences a genetic mutation and if that mutation gives an advantage to the individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, it is favored by natural selection. Mutated genes are passed from parent to offspring, and advantageous mutations spread through future generations in that way. Researchers have observed the MRSA strain infecting a single patient evolving through random mutation and selection. The patient was being treated with vancomycin, and slowly, over the course of a few months and 35 separate mutations, the bacteria evolved into a vancomycin-resistant MRSA strain.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

You asked me HOW it would be that you could recognize when something is designed. I told you.

rossum:

Not quite. I asked you how I could recognise something that could not have been designed.

PEPCIS:

For you to state that ID is required to recognize something that is not designed is something that you are uneccessarily imposing upon the theory.

If ID wants to be accepted as science, then it has to be

science.

Notice the signs of desperation: utter failure to debate forthrightly. Typically, rossum, when someone challenges you with a statement, the thing to do is to actually answer the statement that he made, not introduce an alien concept.

I certainly NEVER stated that ID should not be science. I maintain that it is. I don’t “ask” that it be treated as science. It is. That there are certain ignorant folk out there that treat ID and those who hold it disrespectfully makes no nevermind to me. If you refuse to treat it as science, I guess I should have no problem returning the favor to evolutionists.

Truth be told, evolution theory is not science, and never could be, because it makes predictions ad hoc, after the fact. Every single prediction that you have rendered in your posts are of that nature.

rossum:

Scientific theories can be falsified, so a scientific theory has to have a way that it can be falsified.

That’s not true at all. Evolution theory cannot be falsified. Contrary to its adherent’s claims, there is no SCIENTIFIC MEANS to falsify evolution theory.

rossum:

For example, here is a quote from Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Source: On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six.

His theory absolutely broke down the first time it saw the light of day. What I love about this worn-out and tired quote, is that it forces others to prove the theory positive, instead of proving it negative (which is what REAL falsification is all about).

Despite the fact that there have been some noble efforts to attack this, the reality is that this is like saying that there are green men living on a planet that orbits Alpha Centauri. And further, it’s like saying that if it could be demonstrated that there are no green men living on this planet that orbits Alpha Centauri, my theory would absolutely break down.

LOL Seems like that theory is nice and “safe”, just like Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution. Nice to see so many religionists in this religion of evolution.

rossum:

I am merely asking that ID gives us a way to falsify ID.

I have already given ways to falsify it. For you to deny this is dishonest. It really says more about you than it could ever say about me.

If evolution should ever want to be elevated to TRUE SCIENCE, it needs to start being more honest, and giving us REAL SCIENTIFIC MEANS to falsify the theory of evolution.

This brings me back to my original point: Information cannot arise by naturalistic means.

rossum:

Shannon information, Kolmogorov information and Fisher information can all arise from evolutionary processes.

See this is why evolution theory cannot be taken seriously - it deliberately lies by appropriating words and concepts for its own distorted reality. There is no such thing as “Shannon information” nor is there any such thing as “Kolmogorov information”, nor “Fisher” nor “Schnieder”, etc, etc, et al. That’s because in the hands of an evolutionist, the term takes on a meaning that has absolutely nothing to do with real information.

And on the heels of this, I am STILL WAITING for your definition for information.

rossum:

I have given my definition many times.

That’s just not true. It’s dishonest to say that you have, when all you have given is a tautological expression.

I asked for your definition of information, and all you’ve given me is “Information is Shannon Information.” That says nothing. Why not try once more. The BS detector is waiting.

rossum:

I am aware that you do not agree with my definition, but I am using the standard definition that science uses.

Actually, there is no such definition except what EVOLUTIONISTS use. Scientists and those who work in such disciplines have no problem with developing definitions that go far, far beyond anything that you have proposed. For an example of this, see this site: linfo.org/information.html

Here’s the USDA’s definition of Scientific Information: ocio.usda.gov/qi_guide/doc/FINAL_Peer_Review_Guidelines.doc

Another fine example of how Scientists exhibit a clear distinction from evolutionary bias against real science is seen in Armand Mattelart’s book, The Information Society. In his book, he cites Claude Shannon’s seminal work, and states that Shannon’s definition for information

[SIGN]“was strictly statistical, quantitative and physical. It referred primarily to ‘quantities of information’, disregarding the etymological root of the word ‘information’, which denotes the process whereby knowledge is given form by the structuring of fragments of knowledge…The construction of meaning had no place in Shannon’s research programme.”[/SIGN]​

Rossum, your disagreement with much of science is evident in more than just your refusal to accept the SCIENTIFIC definitions of information.

There is so much more to say, but I shall have to pick this up tomorrow…

 

[Ender]

What is the evidence against Darwinism theory that should be taught?

Are you aware of any open issues at all in Darwinsim - anything that’s not completely explained; holes left to be filled, T’s to be crossed, I’s to be dotted?

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

Truth be told, evolution theory is not science, and never could be, because it makes predictions ad hoc, after the fact. Every single prediction that you have rendered in your posts are of that nature.

Hmmm… Darwin’s prediction that the earliest humans would be found in Africa, for example, was not post hoc, after the fact. Nor was Huxley’s prediction that there would be transitionals between dinosaurs and birds. Both were discovered long after these predictions. “Ad hoc” means something else.

Evolution theory cannot be falsified.

Rabbit fossil in undisturbed Cambrian rocks. There are many, many others. If you thought about it for a while, I’m sure you could think of some.

Rossum writes:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Source: On the Origin of Species, Chapter Six.

What I love about this worn-out and tired quote, is that it forces others to prove the theory positive, instead of proving it negative (which is what REAL falsification is all about).

It’s just another prediction of Darwinism, a single contrary example being enough to falsify it.

This brings me back to my original point: Information cannot arise by naturalistic means.

You still haven’t explained how the information in a hurricane doesn’t arise by naturalistic means.

There is no such thing as “Shannon information”

Without it, you wouldn’t be passing along these misconceptions to the rest of us.

Actually, there is no such definition except what EVOLUTIONISTS use.

** Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information. Historically, information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on compressing and reliably communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography generally, networks other than communication networks — as in neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection[4] in ecology, thermal physics,[5] quantum computing, plagiarism detection[6] and other forms of data analysis.[7]**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

There is so much more to say, but I shall have to pick this up tomorrow…

Great. Can’t wait.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Are you aware of any open issues at all in Darwinsim - anything that’s not completely explained; holes left to be filled, T’s to be crossed, I’s to be dotted?

There are entire journals dedicated to solving remaining problems in evolution, as there are for all sciences. When we’ve filled in every hole, explained everything about it, science is dead.

The thing is, you don’t have any idea what the problems are. This could be an opportunity to see. Why not learn a bit about it, go open a journal of evolutionary science, and find out for yourself?

 

[redneck22]

I gave you the citation and the abstract of the study that documented how it did.

Originally Posted by Monty Arch
Also, plasmids undergo mutations.

That’s a fact. The mutation that produced the bacterium that digests nylon was a frameshift mutation on a plasmid.

**Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 April; 81(8): 2421–2425.
PMCID: PMC345072
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.
S Ohno

The mechanism of gene duplication as the means to acquire new genes with previously nonexistent functions is inherently self limiting in that the function possessed by a new protein, in reality, is but a mere variation of the preexisted theme. As the source of a truly unique protein, I suggest an unused open reading frame of the existing coding sequence. Only those coding sequences that started from oligomeric repeats are likely to retain alternative long open reading frames. Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.**

If you go mano a mano with reality, reality always wins.

So we had a coding sequence that originally produced a 472-amino acid- residue-long…and due to a mutation now produces a 392-amino acid- residue-long…so by any standard this is a ***loss of information ***albeit favourable for nylon digestion. This is like the wingless beetles on windy islands or blind cave fish, a clear demonstration of reductive evolution. Besides, if bacteria are here demonstrating that they are reproducing bacteria then that only supports what Genesis says and is no help to the theory of evolution, which is the explanation of how microbes became microbiologists.

 

[Leela]

So we had a coding sequence that originally produced a 472-amino acid- residue-long…and due to a mutation now produces a 392-amino acid- residue-long…so by any standard this is a ***loss of information ***albiet favourable for nylon digestion. This is like the wingless beetles on windy islands or blind cave fish, a clear demonstration of reductive evolution. Besides, if bacteria are here demonstrating that they are reproducing bacteria then that only supports what Genesis says and is no help to the theory of evolution, which is the explanation of how microbes became microbiologists.

I can’t see what all this talk about information has anything to do with anything. If you want to prove that Darwinism is false, all you need to do is find a prediction based on evolutionary theory and evidence that this prediction is demonstarted to be false. Otherwise, scientists will continue to view the theory like every other verified theory, as useful until a better theory comes along.

It’s really not important that evolutionary theory doesn’t make sense to you. This is just argument from ignorance. There are aspects of quantum mechanics don’t make sense to anyone! But it is still useful, and therefore held to be provissionally true.

If you want to attack evolutionary theory, you will need to show that it is NOT useful for certain purposes. And if you would like to replace it with some other theory, you will need to show that your theory IS useful for those purposes. You need to look at what evolutionary theory predicts and what ID predicts. The problem for you will be that ID doesn’t predict anything since any evidence we could ever observe is consistent with design as is any imagined contradictory evidence. In other words, it is not falsifiable, so it is not a valid scientific hyopothesis and could never be useful in inquiry.

Best,
Leela

 

[Ender]

There are entire journals dedicated to solving remaining problems in evolution

Good, then you should be able to list one or two of the major issues.

The thing is, you don’t have any idea what the problems are.

Actually, what I’ve found is that scientists are pretty open to discussing what the problems are but the non-scientists, who seem to feel that the admission that problems exist might compromise their position, are not.

Ender

 

[grannymh]

I
Otherwise, scientists will continue to view the theory like every other verified theory, as useful until a better theory comes along.

If you want to attack evolutionary theory, you will need to show that it is NOT useful for certain purposes. And if you would like to replace it with some other theory, you will need to show that your theory IS useful for those purposes. You need to look at what evolutionary theory predicts and what ID predicts.
Best,
Leela

Is divergence a theory?

I’m reading the dictionary’s biological definition: “The evolutionary tendency or process by which related life forms evolve into different forms when living under different conditions.”

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[rossum]

Truth be told, evolution theory is not science, and never could be, because it makes predictions ad hoc, after the fact.

You are incorrect. Evolution predicts that we will never find a pegasus - an animal with a mixture of mammalian and bird characteristics. ID cannot make that prediction because the Designer/s could make a prgasus if they so wished. Since no pegasus fossils, or live pegasi, have yer been found, that is not a post hoc prediction.

That’s not true at all. Evolution theory cannot be falsified. Contrary to its adherent’s claims, there is no SCIENTIFIC MEANS to falsify evolution theory.

What part of “my theory would absolutely break down.” do you have a problem with? Darwin provided ways to falsify evolution in Origins; evolution has been falsifiable from the beginning.

There is no such thing as “Shannon information” nor is there any such thing as “Kolmogorov information”, nor “Fisher” nor “Schnieder”, etc, etc, et al.

Then how come it is defined and used in a lot of different fields. Reality does not have to conform to your preconceptions of what it should be. Shannon information is measurable and it works in many fields.

Another fine example of how Scientists exhibit a clear distinction from evolutionary bias against real science is seen in Armand Mattelart’s book, The Information Society. In his book, he cites Claude Shannon’s seminal work, and states that Shannon’s definition for information

[SIGN]“was strictly statistical, quantitative and physical. It referred primarily to ‘quantities of information’, disregarding the etymological root of the word ‘information’, which denotes the process whereby knowledge is given form by the structuring of fragments of knowledge…The construction of meaning had no place in Shannon’s research programme.”[/SIGN]​

Do you read your own quote? It says “The construction of meaning had no place in Shannon’s research programme”, which is exactly what I have been saying - that Shannon infomration is separate from any meaning what may or may not be present in a message. I agree fully with your quote - which also goes to confirm what I said above, that Shannon infomration does exist and to deny your assertion above that Shannon information does not exist. If ‘There is no such thing as “Shannon information”’ as you said, then why are you able to find a quote about it?

Rossum, your disagreement with much of science is evident in more than just your refusal to accept the SCIENTIFIC definitions of information.

I accept a geat deal of science - more than you appear to accept. I have no problem with the scientific definition of Shannon information - as you appear to have.

There is so much more to say, but I shall have to pick this up tomorrow…

But without me, I am on holiday and away from my computer for a week.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

Hmmmmm. The only thing I have a positive correlation to is Pepsi.

I prefer Coca Cola.

granny:

Better, yet. How about you picking a question? And answering it.

I like that idea! Let’s see…think, think, think…

I got one: “When will rossum ever define “information”?”

Ok, here’s my answer: “Never. Why ruin a good fairy tale with the truth???”

granny:

I’m willing to share my Pepsi with you, if you don’t mind it in a That would be more positive than having it in your lap.

Why do I get this sinking feeling that I have hot coffee in my lap?