How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: Barcs

We would love it if you actually retire from here. All you ever have to offer is condescending replies anyway, without any substance. You can never explain why something is wrong. You simply presume it is with an attitude masquerading as some sort of superiority of knowledge.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

We would love it if you actually retire from here. All you ever have to offer is condescending replies anyway, without any substance. You can never explain why something is wrong. You simply presume it is with an attitude masquerading as some sort of superiority of knowledge.

I have explained it in detail ad infinitude. The problem is nobody ever can refute the evidence. You post blatant lies that have been refuted and debunked for decades. The arrogance all comes from you. You don't see me crusading for atheism and trying to convince others it's true and arguing against science. I merely point out the false and illogical claims that you guys make. I've posted evidence for YEARS on here and it's pretty much always flat out ignored. I'm trying to keep people intellectually honest, and they get upset about it instead of letting your data do the talking. But you never have data or evidence, just rhetoric.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

We would love it if you actually retire from here. All you ever have to offer is condescending replies anyway, without any substance. You can never explain why something is wrong. You simply presume it is with an attitude masquerading as some sort of superiority of knowledge.

I have explained it in detail ad infinitude.

I think you mean ad infinitum. Even that is apparently hard for you. But whatever. And you keep repeating that nonsense that you already explained everything ad nauseam, all the while explaining nothing. Remember when I asked how genetic mutations work, and your answer was genetic mutations and natural selection? Yeah...

originally posted by: Barcs
The problem is nobody ever can refute the evidence.

If someone asks for evidence of apples and you throw fruits except apples at people, there's nothing to refute.

originally posted by: Barcs
You post blatant lies that have been refuted and debunked for decades.

Decades? HAHA. I post an article of August 2018 and you pretend it has been debunked for decades. Great job for your credibility. Keep destroying it.

originally posted by: Barcs
The arrogance all comes from you.

Oh look. Once again blaming others for the stuff you do yourself. Just like the likes of feminism, empiricism, and practically every ism out there.

originally posted by: Barcs
You don't see me crusading for atheism

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure bro...Sure.

originally posted by: Barcs
and trying to convince others it's true and arguing against science.

You still don't understand the difference between science and scientism. Science is about questioning, and obviously you are not pro questioning anything.

originally posted by: Barcs
I merely point out the false and illogical claims that you guys make.

And I merely point out that you don't point out anything but have a condescending attitude that doesn't give any real information that helps anyone.

originally posted by: Barcs
I've posted evidence for YEARS on here and it's pretty much always flat out ignored.

Guess you need to find something better to do with your time... Or, maybe, just maybe, change the attitude and actually LISTEN. You cannot convince people of anything when you are unable or (most likely) unwilling to understand where they're coming from.

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm trying to keep people intellectually honest,

Start with yourself. I haven't seen honesty from you. You even claimed I inserted new information in my question when I didn't. Stop lying to yourself. And definitely stop playing the victim or some benevolent white knight. You're not.

originally posted by: Barcs
and they get upset about it instead of letting your data do the talking. But you never have data or evidence, just rhetoric.

Actually, I've posted multiple. But since the likes of you don't like either the questions or the conclusions, you immediately label it something derogatory, like "pseudoscience", or "conspiracy", or "creationist", or "rhetoric", or *insert any defamatory label here*. People never get to the point to talking in depth with you, because you immediately jump to ridiculing them. But, I guess that's how the religious are; They are unable to have a real conversation with anyone outside of their own group.

And by the way, you talk about evidence is it is some sort of hard fact. It isn't. Evidence is an indication of something, and more often than not it can be an indication of multiple things. The interpretation is always important. What you call rhetoric is generally important discourse on perspective. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. The talk of whether DNA is a code, a language, information, is extremely important for example. You love to dismiss it though, because most likely you're afraid of what you might possibly find there.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienView

"Pretend I'm an alien from a species of beings that never saw biological life - Explain it to me Human - Whys do you exist ?"

Then how would you even recognize such as life?

The problem where life is concerned is that we are only really beginning to scratch the surface where our understanding of what constitutes such is concerned.

"Then how would you even recognize such as life?"
- You would have to be alive, whatever the definition, to recognize other beinga as alive - right?

Would you agree that only life could recognize life? - Only life could even hope to define life?

So how can we witness pages and pagss of Evolutionists and Intelligent Designers continuing to debate this subject
as though they are not a part of the subject they are debating? - As if one group is better than the other at producing
an unbiased definiton - As if they can stand ouside of life and define it - not possible.

Life defines life, determines what that means, and the direction where it will proceed - if any.

Evolutiion and Intelligent Design [without religious prejudice] are ideal mechanisms for this objective
- Not only do they not oppose each other - they compliment each other.

Observable Evolution requires Intelligent Design to format its meaning.

The Matrix of existence is not single sided - It is multidimensional and requrews a multi-dimensonal observaton.

a reply to: AlienView

I'm a six and half a dozen Man where evolution vs intelligent design is concerned.

Let's just say constants such as Phi, Pi and G somewhat suggest some form of underlying principles or code are at play where reality, or at least our perception such is concerned.

Further study is required before any definitive answer may be had, that's a given.

a reply to: AlienView

I agree, we cant possibly determine our origins because we are in a multi dimensional system with our senses limited to this dimension
until humans evolved and become multi dimensional beings, or able to traverse dimensions then possibly we will be able to find a better answer !

a reply to: sapien82

Humanity in its present condition seems to have devolved rather than evolved if you ask me.

I don't think we can go much further as a race without transcending mortality.

The problem being our lives are so short and meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

We are only just beginning to learn some true wisdom and knowledge, then either senility, or death, puts pale to that notion.

We refuse to learn from one generation to the next and seem doomed to repeat our ancestors past historical transgressions because our longevity is pretty much pathetic.

a reply to: andy06shake

this is also a very great hurdle !

you maybe right , but I like to think we will prevail
and sort this # out !

surely we cant have a planet full of absolute assholes ,
its so depressing to know there are so many #e #s all over earth!
What the # went so wrong with everyone

a reply to: sapien82

Well, there is always light at the end of the tunnel sapien82, or so i'm told, but let's just hope it not a train coming.

As to what went wrong with everyone, well we might not have been to right, to begin with.

Fact is we don't play well with others, even ourselves, then again that seems to be the bain of all apex predators to one degree or another.

Guess it must just be tough at the top. LoL

originally posted by: vasaga
Remember when I asked how genetic mutations work, and your answer was genetic mutations and natural selection? Yeah...

Remember when I posted evidence and you ignored it multiple times? Remember when I clarified what causes genetic mutations after you explained your vague statement and you STILL ignored it?

If someone asks for evidence of apples and you throw fruits except apples at people, there's nothing to refute.

Blind denial of evidence is not an argument. You refused to even read it, so how can you even make these claims?

Creationists: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
Smart person: Actually there is, please review this link referencing dozens of pieces of evidence supporting it, which is all backed up and sourced by scientific research papers.
Creationists: THAT DOESN'T COUNT!!!
Smart person: Okay then refute the evidence and explain why it doesn't count.
Creationists: EVOLUTION IS YOUR RELIGION!!!

That is your entire argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ask for evidence and then blindly ignore it when provided.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure bro...Sure.

When have I EVER suggested that atheism is backed up by evidence or tried to convince other people it is fact?? I have NEVER done this. I agree with evolution because it is backed by hard testable data while ID is backed by nothing thus I am skeptical of ID.

You still don't understand the difference between science and scientism. Science is about questioning, and obviously you are not pro questioning anything.

Wrong. Science is a method of making observations and testing them. It is you that does not grasp the basics of it and this post proves it.

Start with yourself. I haven't seen honesty from you. You even claimed I inserted new information in my question when I didn't. Stop lying to yourself. And definitely stop playing the victim or some benevolent white knight. You're not.

Go ahead and prove a single lie I said. Sorry, your vague generalizations do not help you. You are the one crusading against science in favor of blind faith. Please just stop. If you can't refute the evidence, you can't refute it. End of story. Still waiting for you to address a SINGLE ONE on the list I posted. JUST ONE. Come on, it can't be that hard can it?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
Remember when I asked how genetic mutations work, and your answer was genetic mutations and natural selection? Yeah...

Remember when I posted evidence and you ignored it multiple times? Remember when I clarified what causes genetic mutations after you explained your vague statement and you STILL ignored it?

Actually, no I don't. And stop trying to change the subject. You made a mistake by trying to answer a question with an irrelevant answer that stated the same thing that was in the question. We all do though, but are you capable of being honest with yourself and admitting it?

originally posted by: Barcs

If someone asks for evidence of apples and you throw fruits except apples at people, there's nothing to refute.

Blind denial of evidence is not an argument. You refused to even read it, so how can you even make these claims?

Creationists: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
Smart person: Actually there is, please review this link referencing dozens of pieces of evidence supporting it, which is all backed up and sourced by scientific research papers.
Creationists: THAT DOESN'T COUNT!!!
Smart person: Okay then refute the evidence and explain why it doesn't count.
Creationists: EVOLUTION IS YOUR RELIGION!!!

That is your entire argument. It's intellectually dishonest to ask for evidence and then blindly ignore it when provided.

And then you dare accuse me of red herrings and strawman arguments?

originally posted by: Barcs

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure bro...Sure.

When have I EVER suggested that atheism is backed up by evidence or tried to convince other people it is fact?? I have NEVER done this. I agree with evolution because it is backed by hard testable data while ID is backed by nothing thus I am skeptical of ID.

Does someone have to literally say "I'm an animal hater" when he kicks every animal he sees, to be considered a proponent of animal violence?

originally posted by: Barcs

You still don't understand the difference between science and scientism. Science is about questioning, and obviously you are not pro questioning anything.

Wrong. Science is a method of making observations and testing them. It is you that does not grasp the basics of it and this post proves it.

That's what it's supposed to be. But you're buying the scientism under the label of science.

originally posted by: Barcs

Start with yourself. I haven't seen honesty from you. You even claimed I inserted new information in my question when I didn't. Stop lying to yourself. And definitely stop playing the victim or some benevolent white knight. You're not.

Go ahead and prove a single lie I said.

I already proved you constantly say you already explained everything, while in reality you haven't explained anything.

originally posted by: Barcs
Sorry, your vague generalizations do not help you.

Here we go again with the vagueness. They are not vague. They are very specific. I gave you specific feedback. Want me to list them? Here we go;
- You need to find something better to do with your time
- You need to change your attitude if you want an actual conversation
- You need to actually listen in order to have an actual conversation, and if you ever want people with different views to consider your side
- You have to be (intellectually) honest with yourself

originally posted by: Barcs
You are the one crusading against science in favor of blind faith.

My blind faith? You have no idea what I even believe. In fact, I speak up against religion in general. So... What are you on about? Are you trying to demonize me? Let me guess. Guilt by association, or poisoning the well? Which is it?

originally posted by: Barcs
Please just stop. If you can't refute the evidence, you can't refute it. End of story.

Still waiting on an explanation of what makes DNA in-equivalent to computer code. Note that if I compare comfort of a seat in a car and a seat in an airplane, saying that the airplane flies and the car drives doesn't have true relevance regarding the car seat and the airplane seat. They are both seats.

originally posted by: Barcs
Still waiting for you to address a SINGLE ONE on the list I posted. JUST ONE. Come on, it can't be that hard can it?

I'm not going through a huge list of irrelevant fruits, as already explained. Link the ones that answer the specific topic, and then we can talk. I actually have a life and don't have the time to spend hours reading irrelevant information. It's quite easy to throw random links at people and claim everything has already been explained and that no one has found anything to refute. It's a cop out of actual interaction and sharing of knowledge.

Most likely you're extremely insecure of your views and are covering it with bravado. You're in the exact same place you were ten years ago, and that, is not something great. But whatever. You do you. I'm tired of these personal mumbo jumbos. I'm not learning anything here, so I guess I must take another break for a few years and see if things have changed here over a decade or so.
.
.
.
.
Most likely they wont.

a reply to: vasaga

Are you ready to refute the evidence yet or ask me questions about genetic mutations? Is there something specific you want to talk about?

Sorry but I'm not going to pussyfoot around when it comes to logical fallacies, double standards or flawed arguments. You don't like my attitude against illogicality, I apologize, but logical reasoning is an important staple of society today and I just try to encourage that.

The DNA / computer code comparison was thoroughly explained already by Phantom and I touched on it as well. I don't think there's anything more to add on that subject.

I actually have a life and don't have the time to spend hours reading irrelevant information.

To be fair, it is all relevant when people keep arguing that there is no evidence for evolution or that it is not testable. I post that link to demonstrate that there is actually TONS of testable evidence. If there is something specific, let me know, but not understanding the evidence or taking the time to read it, tells me you don't really care what it says and have no business discussing science in the first place.

Leave it to the scientists to figure that stuff out and you can live your life. Science is very important, so I defend it against deniers. It's what I do. I'm not anti religion or anti god, I'm against dishonesty and snake oil salesmen. I don't attack science or peddle atheism as truth. I'm just skeptical of unverifiable claims.

Back to the topic here is an interesting article I found on diverging of sexes. This research is from 2018 and shows how it can happen among other species.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Research paper here:

www.nature.com...

Research captures the earliest stages of evolution where male and female gametes first evolved.

A new study published in the journal Communications Biology has shed light on the earliest stages in the evolution of male-female differentiation and sex chromosomes -- and found the genetic origins of the two sexes to be unexpectedly modest.

James Umen, Ph.D., member, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Institute for Renewable Fuels and Joseph Varner Distinguished Investigator at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center was part of a research team led by Dr. Hisayoshi Nozaki at the University of Tokyo who have been investigating the evolution of male and female sexes in a group of freshwater photosynthetic protists called volvocine green algae, a group that is well-known to scientists for capturing early stages in the evolution of sexes and multicellularity. Previous studies in animals and plants identified a general trend of expansion and differentiation between male and female sex chromosomes, often leading to large genetic differences between them; but these studies could not capture the earliest stages of evolution where distinct sperm and egg cell types first evolved from a simpler ancestral mating system with equal-sized gametes, known as isogamy.

The research team focused on two especially informative and closely-related multicellular volvocine species from the genera Yamagishiella and Eudorina which bracket the transition from isogamy to male/female sexes. While 32-celled Yamagishiella and Eudorina colonies look very similar to each other, the former is isogamous while the latter produces small male gametes and large female gametes. The team used high-throughput genome sequencing of the chromosomal regions that specify mating type in Yamagishiella and male-female differentiation in Eudorina, and then compared these regions.

While evolutionary theory predicted an expansion and/or increased genetic complexity of the sex determining region associated with the evolution of sexes in Eudorina, the results of the study showed the opposite, with Eudorina having the most diminutive and genetically least complex sex-determining region found to date found among all volvocine species. In essence, the major difference between males and females in Eudorina could be reduced to the presence or absence of a single gene called MID that resides in a tiny chromosomal region.

"This new study punches a hole in the idea that increased genetic complexity of sex chromosomes accompanied the origin of sexes," said Umen. "Moreover, the work also has practical implications since it expands our understanding of how to identify mating types and sexes in new species of algae that we might want to breed as crops for improved traits relating to biofuel or biotechnology applications."

Interesting stuff, especially the bit at the end.

a reply to: Barcs

"Interesting stuff, especially the bit at the end."

Yes it is interesting - As interesting as a well designed scientific experiment - But what, if not some form of intelligence
is driving the experiment?

Evolution as you present it - as it is accepted - ceaselessly experiments - WHY?

What driving force ceaselessly drives an experiment - And drives that experiment in directions that have to be
seen as creative?

I have no evidence whatsoever of 'a creator' or 'an intelligent designer' but stil must ask what force in this
universe is driving its obvious tendency to create - Survival of the fittest is not enough
- And maybe if there is one lesson Evolution can give to all no matter their inclinations
- It's never enough !

originally posted by: vasaga

Still waiting on an explanation of what makes DNA in-equivalent to computer code. Note that if I compare comfort of a seat in a car and a seat in an airplane, saying that the airplane flies and the car drives doesn't have true relevance regarding the car seat and the airplane seat. They are both seats.

Right, because they are both seats, so if you want to use an airplane seat in some analogy about a car seat, it's appropiate. It doesn't make it the (exact) equivalent of the other seat, but any discussion about exact equivalence in each and every aspect in that sense (as if it's required for an analogy, or pointing out 2 or 3 differences as if that makes it a 'false analogy') would be a red herring from the fact that they are both seats (a fact/reality, not a mere analogy or metaphor). Asking for an explanation of why the DNA code as found in living organisms is not (exactly) equivalent to computer code is almost a bit like setting up that red herring though (I hope and I'm inclined to assume that wasn't the intention of your first sentence quoted above).

In 1953, molecular biologists James Watson and Francis Crick published a discovery that was critical to our scientific understanding of life. They had discovered the double-helical structure of DNA. This threadlike substance​—mostly found in the nucleus of cells—​contains encoded, or “written,” information, making cells living libraries, as it were. This amazing discovery opened up a new era in biology. But what purpose is served by the “writing” in cells? More intriguing, how did it get there?

In the human genome there are approximately three billion chemical “rungs.” Scientists call these rungs base pairs because each rung is made up of two chemical substances, of which there are four altogether. Using the first letter of each, these substances are abbreviated A, C, G, and T​—a simple, four-letter alphabet, as it were. In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

Information, whether in the form of pictures, sounds, or words, can be stored and processed in many ways. Computers, for example, do this all digitally. Living cells store and process information chemically, DNA being the key compound. How do cells use information? Think of DNA as a collection of recipes, each one involving step-by-step processes, with each step carefully scripted in precise terms. But instead of the end result being a cake or a cookie, it might be a cabbage or a cow. In living cells, of course, the processes are fully automated, adding yet another layer of complexity and sophistication.

Genetic information is stored until it is needed, perhaps to replace worn out or diseased cells with healthy new ones or to pass on traits to offspring. How much information does DNA hold? Consider one of the smallest organisms, bacteria. German scientist Bernd-Olaf Küppers stated: “Carried over to the realm of human language, the molecular text describing the construction of a bacterial cell would be about the size of a thousand-page book.” For good reason, chemistry professor David Deamer wrote: “One is struck by the complexity of even the simplest form of life.” How does the genome of a human compare? “[It] would fill a library of several thousand volumes,” says Küppers.

To describe the writing in DNA as “molecular-genetic language” is more than “mere metaphor,” says Küppers. “Like human language,” he points out, “the molecular-genetic language also possesses a syntactic dimension.” Put simply, DNA has a “grammar,” or set of rules, that strictly regulates how its instructions are composed and carried out.

The “words” and “sentences” in DNA make up the various “recipes” that direct the production of proteins and other substances that form the building blocks of the various cells that make up the body. For example, the “recipe” might guide the production of bone cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, or skin cells. “The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter,” wrote evolutionist Matt Ridley. “It is almost too good to be true, but the code turns out to be written in a way that we can understand.”

The Bible writer David said in prayer to God: “Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book.” (Psalm 139:16) Of course, David was using poetic language. Nevertheless, in principle, he was right on the mark, which is typical of the Bible writers. None were even slightly influenced by the fanciful folklore or mythology of other ancient peoples.​—2 Samuel 23:1, 2; 2 Timothy 3:16.

How did the writing get there? As is often the case, when scientists explain one mystery, they open a door to another. That was true regarding the discovery of DNA. When it was understood that DNA contains coded information, thoughtful people asked, ‘How did the information get there?’ Of course, no human observed the formation of the first DNA molecule. So we have to draw our own conclusions. Even so, these conclusions need not be speculative. Consider the following comparisons:

- In 1999, fragments of very ancient pottery with unusual markings, or symbols, were found in Pakistan. The marks still remain undeciphered. Nevertheless, they are considered man-made.

- A few years after Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, two physicists proposed searching for coded radio signals from space. Thus began the modern-day search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

The point? People attribute information to intelligence, whether that information is in the form of symbols on clay or signals from space. They do not need to see the information being created to draw that conclusion. Yet, when the most sophisticated code known to man​—the chemical code of life—​was discovered, many shoved that logic aside, attributing DNA to mindless processes. Is that reasonable? Is it consistent? Is it scientific? A number of respected scientists say no. These include Dr. Gene Hwang and Professor Yan-Der Hsuuw. Consider what they say.

Dr. Gene Hwang studies the mathematical basis of genetics. At one time he believed in evolution, but his research changed his view. “The study of genetics, provides insight into the mechanisms of life​—an insight that fills me with awe for the Creator’s wisdom.”

Professor Yan-Der Hsuuw is the director of embryo research at Taiwan’s National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. He too once believed in evolution​—until his research led him to conclude otherwise. Regarding cell division and specialization, he said: “The right cells must be produced in the right order and at the right places. First they assemble into tissues that will in turn assemble themselves into organs and limbs. What engineer can even dream of writing instructions for such a process? Yet the instructions for embryo development are superbly written in DNA. When I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God.”

a reply to: whereislogic

"............... When I consider the beauty of it all I’m convinced that life was designed by God.”


OK believe what you want - but we live in an age of skepticism - As you seem to be skeptical of Evolution.

So please tell us WHY a perfect and immortal entity would create a matrix full of suffering, misery, carnality,
and other forms of bestial outcomes such as war - do you see the beauty in that too?

WHY

You see in many ways I believe in Intelligent Design - But my concept of ID is based upon science and logic
- not blind faith.

Intelligent Design might separate intelligence from dumb chance and stupidity but it does not
separate faith based believers from skeptics and atheists - Intelligence rules without religious prejudice,
- and that's a design format you can trust.

a reply to: AlienView

Why Does God Allow Suffering? What Does the Bible Really Teach?

Human Suffering—Why Does God Permit It?

Also note the button for "similar material" in the last link if you have any questions left regarding that subject or similar questions. Btw, you question about that subject is called "a leading question", it's like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife?" It assumes (or already accuses) the one being asked of having beaten his wife.

Does God Cause Human Suffering? | What the Bible Says
Why Do We Suffer? Is it God’s Fault? | Bible Questions

a reply to: AlienView
Oh, the better terminology for that type of question is actually "loaded question". But come to think of it, it's both (in legal terms a loaded question would also be called a leading question I think, allthough I'm not a lawyer or something like that).

Wikipedia describes a loaded question as such:

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

In the case of your question God being the cause or responsible for "a matrix full of suffering, misery, carnality, and other forms of bestial outcomes such as war" (or at fault for that outcome). Wikipedia continues:

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

So that was actually what I was describing and why I linked those articles concerning the assumption that God is at fault or the cause for* what you described in your rhetorical question (*: regardless whether or not you exactly spelled it out that way, it's implied by the way you phrased your question).

a reply to: whereislogic

i'm assumig you are a believer - correct?

I'm just a 'hypothetical' alien skeptic from elsewhaere - So for your benefit I will rephrase the intial question.

How does 'God' explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

I'll keep an open mind.

a reply to: AlienView
, lost my response to you with a wrong click of the button. Don't feel like retyping the whole comment. So sad now. It seems to happen to me at least once a year, this year's came early. It's really annoying.

It's also the reason why I tend to post quickly and then end up adding edits and additional thoughts in between parentheses (since Barcs asked about that behaviour in another thread here, although the question seemed more rhetorical than sincere, in an attempt to point out something negative and/or discrediting about my commentary; possibly provide a reason for others to ignore it or at least not take it too seriously, consider what I'm saying or pointing out or towards for very long or very seriously, so I didn't feel like answering there, now the subject has come up anyway).