ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Thread of No Return (aka, why am I committing sepukku?)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:07 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
I fully believe that in making this thread I will get thrashed by the majority of the board. So here I go anyway. At the current moment, I have no time to show any proofs, evidence, or anything else. I'll come back to this later this week (I hope) at some point. Just fyi, it's a continuation from the creation/evolution discussion found in "We ran out of weed, so we decided to smoke our Bibles instead to get closer to God." so if anyone wishes, they can bring the quotes, evidence, and the like from there to here. Thanks!

Oh, and this is strictly for creation/evolution debate, not for other religious topics (though there can be some crossing in making points). I myself am guilty of straying on occasion (ok, often), so let's help keep each other accountable? Thanks!

Edit: Temporary Place Holder for future information:
Wrin, this is one place where pangenes are mentioned and used. Please note that the site itself (a very good resource with excellent reasoning) disagrees with my own views of creation. Also, if you know, would you PM me on how to make a link part of my words (to take less room, you see).

Edit again! I think I know how to do the url thingy! Wee! Other n00bish reactions!

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Last edited by tacticslion on Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:21 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
The problem with evolution is that people don't understand it. People and things don't change to survive. The ones that can survive from birth pass on the better DNA to subsequent generations.

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Thread of No Return (aka, why am I committing sepukku?)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:39 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
tacticslion wrote:
I fully believe that in making this thread I will get thrashed by the majority of the board. So here I go anyway. At the current moment, I have no time to show any proofs, evidence, or anything else. I'll come back to this later this week (I hope) at some point. Just fyi, it's a continuation from the creation/evolution discussion found in "We ran out of weed, so we decided to smoke our Bibles instead to get closer to God." so if anyone wishes, they can bring the quotes, evidence, and the like from there to here. Thanks!

Oh, and this is strictly for creation/evolution debate, not for other religious topics (though there can be some crossing in making points). I myself am guilty of straying on occasion (ok, often), so let's help keep each other accountable? Thanks!

Edit: Temporary Place Holder for future information:
Wrin, this is one place where pangenes are mentioned and used. Please note that the site itself (a very good resource with excellent reasoning) disagrees with my own views of creation. Also, if you know, would you PM me on how to make a link part of my words (to take less room, you see).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precurs ... hered.html


See http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... c&&start=0

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
ah, nothing is reputable like a site whose subtitle is "Exploring the Controversy."

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Thread of No Return (aka, why am I committing sepukku?)
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
tacticslion wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurhered.html


So, you're saying that your assertion that evolution has been disproven is based on the fact that someone who died in 1882 had their version of the theory ripped to shreds? Is that right? Have you ever taken a modern biology course? It's quite different and much more reasonable now. It has been 124 years, after all. I guess I'll start with two points from the earlier thread so that we've got some debatable "meat" to "chew on"--

Point the first: Dinosaurs
Onion wrote:
Bill Hicks wrote:
Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, including that wacky fire and brimstone Revelations ending, have had their finger on the fucking button for 12 years. [Eyes roll back in head] "Tell me when Lord, tell me when. Let me be your servant Lord." Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the bi.., er, the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God. What the..? Based on what? I asked them. "Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages - 12 thousand years." Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."


Point the second (related): Fossils
Krylex wrote:
According to creation scientists, the fossil record was created during the flood. That's where all of the bones buried in the earth come from.

Now, this leaves us with a couple problems. If a flood universally killed everyone but the inhabitants on a single ship, we would find more uniform dispersement of bones rather than just simply finding patches here and there, at different strata levels and so on.

Second, if a flood killed everything at once, why are trilobytes at the bottom below such creatures as dinosaurs? Trilobytes are one of the smaller and lighter pre-historic creatures to exist, and by all accounts of creation science, should have floated to the top strata in the flood.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:34 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
For someone who's so frantic to take thigns to the debate club you're managing to ignore the fact that there's already a topic open for this subject.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Okay, guys. Let's have a good clean fight here. No holding, no low punches, no biting, gouging or rabbit punches. You'll break when I say break.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Okay, I know this is a duplicate thread but it was sanctioned - we discussed it via PMs and I agreed that it may be beneficial if a new thread was started with a clean slate. I've also agreed to keep a particular eye on this thread and to that end, from this point onwards I want no off-topic discussion (thread will be split), asinine comments that add nothing to the debate (posts removed) or any general fucktardary in the form of silly macros/memes or childish name calling (posts removed).

kyhm, here wrote:
  • [...]
  • Third rule: Somebody starts flaming... starts swearing... conceeds the debate... the debate is over.
  • [...]
  • Fifth rule: No macros. No inline images.
  • [...]


Lets try and be mature folks.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
The Baron wrote:
ah, nothing is reputable like a site whose subtitle is "Exploring the Controversy."


Actually, I feel it necessary to point out that TO.org is a pro-evolution site. I can't tell if this is slight of hand on the part of TL, trying to blacklist a site for research in pro-evolutionist minds attempting to research this, by showing the most anti-Darwin page on the website. Or if he's simply dense enough to think most people aren't going to check past a single page. :)

Also, directed at TL, what is your thesis? You never stated.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: back and less eloquent than ever before!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:06 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Just a few points of clarification:
A) The quote in question is:
meself wrote:
...because it's based on a flawed scientific theory that has been proven false...


Explained more clearly at a later time:

meself later on wrote:
Actually, I didn't say evolution was debunked. I said Darwinian evolution was debunked, as in a certain kind and type of philosophical evolution which is based upon principles that have been proven to not exist in the first place.


The point I originally made with this wasn't that evolution was disproven. Rather, I had a long series of statements about how Darwinian evolution, as it was and is called, relied on the theory of Pangenes. Pangenes are now proven not to exist. Ergo, Darwinian evolution is wrong. This does not, however, rule out Neo Darwinian evolution, which is the slow alteration of one racial group into another over time. Ei, the slow evolution of our Baboon-like ancestors over several 'missing links' to modern human. The difficulty with Neo-Darwinian evolution is that most all fossils found that seemed to indicate that there were missing links have either prove to be wholly animal (found today), wholly human (generally with arthritis or a bone problem), a hoax (where the evidence was planted), or a mistake (where the evidence was mixed up, much as it was for early excavations of brontosauri [grammar?] with wrong heads and all that).

This means that the currently accepted theory of evolution for our ancestors is Post Neo-Darwinian evolution, at least according to most geologists, paleantologists, and archeologists. This does not mean that it is the only theory, but rather the prevailing one to match the fossil record. This theory states, in common terms, that evolution happens very rapidly, all at once. Ex: A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches from it. Ex: a non-human primate has a baby and it's human. The current arguments about this particular theory are whether it occurs as part of a cataclysmic event (the new race completely replaces the old in a single generation) or wether the evolutionary iterations simply come faster and faster until the new species (the 'destined' species) comes to be by force of numbers and time. Or if it's some combination thereof.

I'm not pulling any intellectual slight of hand. In fact, I clearly labled the site I linked as being opposed to my own views. My one and only point was that Darwinian Evolution, aka that kind that was spelled out in the book 'Origin of the Species', the first theory of evolution and foundation for future ones, was incorrect. Current theory has been revised, revisited, altered, and reworked in order to align it with our observations of things that conflicted with the older theories. I. Did. Not. Claim. Evolution. Was. Debunked. Darwinian evolution yes. Post Neo Darwinian Evolution, no. Heck, I never even claimed Neo Darwinian evolution was debunked, only that it has fallen out of favor in several circles for Post Neo Darwinian evolution based on fossil evidence.

I find it quite strange that no one actually sees the difference, when it seems quite evident to me. One kind of evolution (and older kind) proved false. The newer kinds not. Simple statement, honest, backed by science and history.

I created this thread for one purpose: to take the evolution debate here, instead of the thread it had grown on from another. I lack the time, skills, or understanding to actually move the whole thread of quotes, to determine the important parts, and to avoid being confusing. I'd ask that someone else do it, but there's been an awful lot of posts since the thread's inception! Again, as I stated in the other thread, the point of this one isn't to discuss politics. It isn't to discuss who has the larger penis, or who's an idiot (the latter probably me :)). It's simply to show that my beliefs aren't science, and to move an unintentional debate (creation v. evolution) here.

Strangely, it seems to be a debate more about what I said than what we believe. At least on my part. Huh, guess I should work on my communication skills! They're pretty bad!

If anyone wishes, I can gladly spell out my beliefs, line by tedious line, over a series of posts. OR Someone can take appropriate paraphrases, quotes, and other such things from the previous forum and bring it here. OR Something else that may be wiser that I haven't thought of.

Edited: grammar, spelling, and a few spare moments of my time. And to clarify.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:10 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Alright, alright...before I start I'd like to thank Ptlis for stepping in on this. The debate had gone to flaming, and that always kills it.

Now, TC? Can we get a clear idea of exactly what you mean by saying that the previous theories were debunked? Were you citing them to say that they are somehow unreliable or something else? I'm not sure of the "finer points" of what I'm trying to argue against right now, and as long as that's the case I can't really compose my opinion on the matter let alone try to sway yours.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:55 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
I heard this debate too many times. The only thing I have to contribute, is that evolution is only a theory, and it has some big holes in it. I'm sorry I don't have the words (as in, I don't know how to translate this shit) so I can't give you the examples, but there were some big leaps in evolution, leaps too big to be considered as 'survival of the fittest'.

Edit: I asked my old man for some help in translating.
Fish use mioglobin (sp?), mammals use hemoglobin. The two systems are incompatible to the level of poision.
Also - Complex eyes and insect eyes are the only kind of eyes. There are no evidance to enlighten us as to how they evolved.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:13 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Fish use mioglobin (sp?), mammals use hemoglobin. The two systems are incompatible to the level of poision.

This is totally wrong - myoglobin is a protine used in the muscles of all animals and is used to store oxygen in them in much the same way heamoglobin is used to transport oxygen through our cardiovascular system (as I understand it, chemistry & physics are my primary areas of intrest). It seems that although myoglobin is toxic to our kidneys its not generally circulating in our cardiovascular system and is instead safely locked up in our muscles, posing no threat to our kidneys unless some form of muscle damage is sustained.

Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Also - Complex eyes and insect eyes are the only kind of eyes. There are no evidance to enlighten us as to how they evolved.

Again, the above point is incorrect - there's enough evidence now for us to see how eyes developed from simple photo-sensitive cells to the relatively complex eye (and interestingly it does follow a similar chain to the theory for this proposed by Darwin). I can't find a copy of the specific study detailing these intermediate stages, but I have sourced the <a href="http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html">press release</a> for it meaning people with better resources at their disposal should be able to find it without too much difficulty.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
I heard this debate too many times. The only thing I have to contribute, is that evolution is only a theory, and it has some big holes in it. I'm sorry I don't have the words (as in, I don't know how to translate this shit) so I can't give you the examples, but there were some big leaps in evolution, leaps too big to be considered as 'survival of the fittest'.

Edit: I asked my old man for some help in translating.
Fish use mioglobin (sp?), mammals use hemoglobin. The two systems are incompatible to the level of poision.
Also - Complex eyes and insect eyes are the only kind of eyes. There are no evidance to enlighten us as to how they evolved.


Immediately counting something off as simply a theory is in incorrect way to approach a scientific debate.

You might want to look up a bit more on what a scientific theory actually is, as it is not used in the same manner as a layman's theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:37 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
In support of this:

krylex wrote:
Immediately counting something off as simply a theory is in incorrect way to approach a scientific debate.


In context, a theory is a "plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". (Webster.) The same dictionary offers numerous other definitions of that word, but when we mention things like "Darwinian evolutionary theory", the denotation above is the one we are using.

By contrast, the same word can mean in other contexts "an unproved assumption or conjecture". That is absolutely not what is meant when discussing scientific theory. The use of the same word to denote two ideas so different as to be nearly opposite to each other is bound to cause confusion, naturally, but as we're writing in English we're bound to hit such little obstacles now and then.

It is my own contention and that of several others here that evolution is the first kind of theory and creation is the second kind. We can observe Darwinian evolution happening and even cause it to happen, which is the ultimate test of a predictive scientific theory. We cannot observe any phenomenon to support the idea that the universe was created ba-da-boom! six thousand years ago even if our contention that Darwinian evolution is mistaken, nor can we come up with any idea how to create new things out of nothingness.* Hey, it might have happened, but whether it did or not is undiscoverable, and considering all these other bits of evidence (petrified dinosaur bones, anyone, lying 300 to 65 million years deep in the earth? did I mention that geology is a science, too?) it seems counterintuitive.

* Actually, come to think of it, there is a way to create new things out of nothingness. It's called a Big Bang. It happened perhaps 20 billion years ago, give or take a few billion years, and its epicenter was a very, very long way from dinky little planet Earth, which by other astronomical evidence is only about 4 billion years old.

Nevertheless, Childhood's End and other stories aside, we don't know how to tap zero-point energies. Even if we learn, though, we won't be creating things from nothing, but rather only borrowing things from nothing. Physics, especially the physics of high energy and small volume, is very very weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: back and less eloquent than ever before!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
tacticslion wrote:
I'm not pulling any intellectual slight of hand. In fact, I clearly labled the site I linked as being opposed to my own views.


Just to counter this, no you didn't. At least not at the time I had posted.

TacticsLyin' wrote:
Last edited by tacticslion on 10 Mar 2006 02:41; edited 2 times in total


OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Posted: 09 Mar 2006 22:34


A new post with refutations is in the works.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: back and less eloquent than ever before!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:33 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
tacticslion wrote:
This means that the currently accepted theory of evolution for our ancestors is Post Neo-Darwinian evolution, at least according to most geologists, paleantologists, and archeologists. This does not mean that it is the only theory, but rather the prevailing one to match the fossil record. This theory states, in common terms, that evolution happens very rapidly, all at once. Ex: A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches from it. Ex: a non-human primate has a baby and it's human. The current arguments about this particular theory are whether it occurs as part of a cataclysmic event (the new race completely replaces the old in a single generation) or wether the evolutionary iterations simply come faster and faster until the new species (the 'destined' species) comes to be by force of numbers and time. Or if it's some combination thereof.

Is this in reference to punctuated equilibrium, saltationism, or what? Your descriptors are vague.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: back and less eloquent than ever before!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
tacticslion wrote:
The difficulty with Neo-Darwinian evolution is that most all fossils found that seemed to indicate that there were missing links have either prove to be wholly animal (found today), wholly human (generally with arthritis or a bone problem), a hoax (where the evidence was planted), or a mistake (where the evidence was mixed up, much as it was for early excavations of brontosauri [grammar?] with wrong heads and all that).


Aside from seperation of humans from animals (humans are in fact animals...). There's the "missing link" argument (there are several links between prehistoric apes and modern humans. I'm sure you've read this page, but review it for me. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html )

Shortly, put the explaination for why this isn't a problem is either strawman'd or simply completely misstated by your in your next paragraph. Let's take a look.

Quote:
This theory states, in common terms, that evolution happens very rapidly, all at once. Ex: A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches from it. Ex: a non-human primate has a baby and it's human. The current arguments about this particular theory are whether it occurs as part of a cataclysmic event (the new race completely replaces the old in a single generation) or wether the evolutionary iterations simply come faster and faster until the new species (the 'destined' species) comes to be by force of numbers and time. Or if it's some combination thereof.


First part is strawman, second part seems to be just stupid.

Here's what really happens:

Usually, when a large group of animals mate and reproduce the differences between them are slight, and while natural selection still operates, there is not much in the way of change because everyone is mating with everyone still, and the differences between the members of the species is averaged out for the most part. Following your standard Gaussian distribution.

However, change in a species can occur for several reasons. The most common is isolation from the rest of the breeding population. When the genes of one group and the genes of another group can no longer intermingle genetic drift can occur.

This isn't drastic or quick though. I believe what you were attempting to refer to was that species under a high mortality rate. Under normal conditions a large percentage of the population survives to mate, and more fit members of the species die before mating, if not just as often than less fit members, then very close. As what they die from are more or less random and not indicitive of fitness as a member of the species.

e.g, a swift deer breaking his leg on a root, a bear with an extra good nose is sniffing outside of a person's house, an intelligent human who just happened to be near a suicide bomber when he decided to go off. etc. etc.

However, when a species is under a high amount of selective pressure (the most common reason is limited resources), far fewer members survive to mate, and these are generally *more* related to the member's fitness. So evolution occurs swiftly.

Quote:
I find it quite strange that no one actually sees the difference, when it seems quite evident to me. One kind of evolution (and older kind) proved false. The newer kinds not. Simple statement, honest, backed by science and history.


The problem I have with it is your referring to it as "Darwinian Evolution," "Neo Darwinian Evolution," and "Post Neo Darwinian Evolution." Just call it "evolution." Or if you want to be specific, be specific, say "evolutionary theory circa 1850."

I've never heard of it referred to as "Post-Neo-PseudoDarwo-Super-Evolutionary-Theory of the Ages." By saying "Neo Darwinian Evolution" you are saying it's new and current (or that it's related somehow to The One.) Which seems to be untrue with the naming schema you seem to have invented(?)

It's confusing. Stop it.

Quote:
Strangely, it seems to be a debate more about what I said than what we believe. At least on my part. Huh, guess I should work on my communication skills! They're pretty bad!


I'm not about to put words in your mouth, so stop me if I'm wrong. You disagree with the old theories of evolution, but you agree with the newer ones.

You have found yourself forced to defend a position you do not believe in (evo i stotly worng k?! lol juzus rox!)

You are apparently a Christian of some sort, but it is unclear whether or not you believe in God creating the universe via the Big Bang, or somesuch. Which I have no beef with anyway. Because science doesn't seek to explain why things are the way they are. Just how.

So it's less of "tacticslion is an idiot because he's debating the validity of modern evolution." And more of "tacticslion is an idiot because even though he writes incredibly long posts he doesn't really say anything. And the little that he does say is unintended or unclear. So he needs to take a writing course or two."

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: back and less eloquent than ever before!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:44 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Quote:
This theory states, in common terms, that evolution happens very rapidly, all at once. Ex: A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches from it. Ex: a non-human primate has a baby and it's human. The current arguments about this particular theory are whether it occurs as part of a cataclysmic event (the new race completely replaces the old in a single generation) or wether the evolutionary iterations simply come faster and faster until the new species (the 'destined' species) comes to be by force of numbers and time. Or if it's some combination thereof.


First part is strawman, second part seems to be just stupid.

Here's what really happens:

Usually, when a large group of animals mate and reproduce the differences between them are slight, and while natural selection still operates, there is not much in the way of change because everyone is mating with everyone still, and the differences between the members of the species is averaged out for the most part. Following your standard Gaussian distribution.

However, change in a species can occur for several reasons. The most common is isolation from the rest of the breeding population. When the genes of one group and the genes of another group can no longer intermingle genetic drift can occur.

This isn't drastic or quick though. I believe what you were attempting to refer to was that species under a high mortality rate. Under normal conditions a large percentage of the population survives to mate, and more fit members of the species die before mating, if not just as often than less fit members, then very close. As what they die from are more or less random and not indicitive of fitness as a member of the species.

e.g, a swift deer breaking his leg on a root, a bear with an extra good nose is sniffing outside of a person's house, an intelligent human who just happened to be near a suicide bomber when he decided to go off. etc. etc.

However, when a species is under a high amount of selective pressure (the most common reason is limited resources), far fewer members survive to mate, and these are generally *more* related to the member's fitness. So evolution occurs swiftly.

I'm not entirely sure he's being deliberately fallacious here. It reads like saltationism, but might be referring to punctuated equilibrium, which is, as far as I'm aware, the prevailing theory explaining evolutionary steps in the fossil record. PE has been called synonymous with saltationism, but such is a stupid, stupid mistake.

Basically, PE argues that evolution occurs over a short period of time, relative to the organism's existence. We're not talking "monkey births baby tomorrow." Short period of time here is tens of thousands of years.

Can't really tell if he means PE or saltationism or something entirely different because of his lack of terminology. Note to TL: most of these theories have actual names. Please use them as "post neo super Darwinian evolution" means absolutely nothing. Alternatively, link to sources explaining such theories. Relying solely on your explanation for what is or is not the current theory will go nowhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:34 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
ptlis wrote:
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Fish use mioglobin (sp?), mammals use hemoglobin. The two systems are incompatible to the level of poision.

This is totally wrong - myoglobin is a protine used in the muscles of all animals and is used to store oxygen in them in much the same way heamoglobin is used to transport oxygen through our cardiovascular system (as I understand it, chemistry & physics are my primary areas of intrest). It seems that although myoglobin is toxic to our kidneys its not generally circulating in our cardiovascular system and is instead safely locked up in our muscles, posing no threat to our kidneys unless some form of muscle damage is sustained.

Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Also - Complex eyes and insect eyes are the only kind of eyes. There are no evidance to enlighten us as to how they evolved.

Again, the above point is incorrect - there's enough evidence now for us to see how eyes developed from simple photo-sensitive cells to the relatively complex eye (and interestingly it does follow a similar chain to the theory for this proposed by Darwin). I can't find a copy of the specific study detailing these intermediate stages, but I have sourced the <a href="http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html">press release</a> for it meaning people with better resources at their disposal should be able to find it without too much difficulty.

ptlis

Good rebattle, the only question is how reliable are your sources. I'll ask a biologist the next time I see one, mkay?

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: My old highschool had a section on ID vs. evolution. Every teacher they asked basically laughed at ID. Even highschool teachers know it, why don't you?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
I'll ask a biologist the next time I see one, mkay?


Please do. It'd solve a lot of problems if people, y'know, consulted the experts in whatever field they're talking about. Not to say experts are infallible, or don't deserve a little skepticism now and again. Just that they're probably more right than you are. That is, after all, what they're paid to be. And unless you want to allege some crazy conspiracy (don't laugh, I've heard it claimed before), then these crazy scientist fellers are probably worth trustin' when it comes to the proper application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or what Hox genes do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group