I think it was what werldhead posted that got me up a little.
I stated something about evolving based on technological dependency, but he was dismissive of the idea until it was worded with more scientific terms by someone else. Seems like I get that a lot - I just want to make sure I am not considered in these discussions the way Kracus is thought of in his space threads.
Sorry, man, that's not what I meant at all. :icon17:
You were right about what you said. At first I thought you were wrong, but then thinking about it I realized that you were quite correct. I was going to agree with you, but I noticed Ryoki posted just what I wanted to say, so I quoted him. It was meant to convey that fact that you were right.
To answer your question, though, I've always thought you're smart and I enjoy reading your posts (I did long before I posted in gd, too. Back when I just lurked in LEM). You always have evidence to back up your claims. :icon14:
I think that a lot of the confusion surrounding the theory of evolution comes from the fact that a lot of people like to talk without ever really educating themselves (ie: stupid people like to talk about things which they know literally nothing about).
edit: speaking of stupid people, I left out a word.
Jackal wrote:I think that a lot of the confusion surrounding the theory of evolution comes from the fact that a lot of people like to talk without ever really educating themselves (ie: stupid people like to talk about things which they know literally nothing about).
edit: speaking of stupid people, I left out a word.
That's a pretty judgemental statement. You've personally verified everybodies level of education in the matter?
They disagree with you so you assume they know nothing? :lol:
Last edited by Cool Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cool Blue wrote:
Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.
You asked and answered your own question with two consecutive sentences. Evolution is SLOW. Where did you get the idea that useful evolution is something that could occur over a span of hundreds or even thousands of years? Whatever paper you read was authored by a wack job I think.
The theory may need refining, but this certainly doesn't disprove anything...[/i].
To me that statement comletely sums up the Darwin theory. You just tried to defend it's accuracy as fact, then follow up with a statement admitting it has flaws. How is that science? Sounds more like ego to me (of the scientific community, not you persay. :P).
I was more pointing out that you say evolution's impossible because it takes too long, then you say it's impossible because we don't know how long it took. One of your arguments undermines the other if we assume one of them to be true (although in fact neither is).
You're about thirty years out of date though. I've read the Origin of Species and much of it is deeply unscientific on the lines of "you see that bees' nest? Look at it! Neat huh? Couldn't be that way by chance", but you're missing out on the point that a lot of molecular biology IS fact, and the fossil record's nowhere near as important now.
Last edited by Geebs on Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cool Blue wrote:
Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.
You asked and answered your own question with two consecutive sentences. Evolution is SLOW. Where did you get the idea that useful evolution is something that could occur over a span of hundreds or even thousands of years? Whatever paper you read was authored by a wack job I think.
Your biggest mistake is assuming that I said evolution didn't happen.
I've only been stating why I feel Darwinism is not science fact, but theory (and thusly shouldn't be taught in school as fact).
You can't prove its correct as much as I can't prove Aliens came down and modified our DNA as an experiment.
Geebs wrote:I was more pointing out that you say evolution's impossible because it takes too long, then you say it's impossible because we don't know how long it took. One of your arguments undermines the other if we assume one of them to be true (although in fact neither is).
Uhm NO. That's not what I said.
I said I bloke attempted to model given the darwin rules, such as; survival of the fittest, chance mutation of something positive happening, environmental factors, and other factors, and came up with a model equating that we shouldn't be as far evovled as we are given those rules.
But since we are... how?
For example, if one monkey mutated his thumb and became the first monkey with an opposable thumb, how long would it take for that monkey to propagate an entirely new species? Consider that for every major positive mutation and it becomes fathomable that evolution has some holes in it still. That's all i'm saying.
Last edited by Cool Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cool Blue wrote:
Your biggest mistake is assuming that I said evolution didn't happen.
I've only been stating why I feel Darwinism is not science fact, but theory (and thusly shouldn't be taught in school as fact).
You can't prove its correct as much as I can't prove Aliens came down and modified our DNA as an experiment.
It's all subjective, that's my point.
Agreed, but it's the theory that best fits reality and all the data we've accumulated over the course of recorded history. For my money it beats: "Everything was created by an all-powerful invisible man who lives in the sky that no one has ever been able to document at all."
Sorry if I took on an aggressive tone - I know a lot of religious zealots that refuse to listen to reason and I pegged you for one. My bad
4g3nt_Smith wrote:This is the same country where my fellow classmates wore "Save a deer, kill a queer" t-shirts yesterday, on the Nat'l day of Silence to protest ridicule for being homoesexual.
Cool Blue wrote:
Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.
You asked and answered your own question with two consecutive sentences. Evolution is SLOW. Where did you get the idea that useful evolution is something that could occur over a span of hundreds or even thousands of years? Whatever paper you read was authored by a wack job I think.
Your biggest mistake is assuming that I said evolution didn't happen.
I've only been stating why I feel Darwinism is not science fact, but theory (and thusly shouldn't be taught in school as fact).
You can't prove its correct as much as I can't prove Aliens came down and modified our DNA as an experiment.
It's all subjective, that's my point.
Darwin wasn't the first person person to come up with the concept of evolution.
sys0p wrote:Even more reason for their to be a bunch of half evolved things running about. Like elephants with wings and giraffes that live in trees.
Not really. Like he said, the changes will almost always be so minute that it will take a loooonnnnggggg time. About the only time a change is drastic, it's usually a defect that'll end up killing the creature very early on.
Cool Blue wrote:Consider that for every major positive mutation and it becomes fathomable that evolution has some holes in it still. That's all i'm saying.
There's no such thing as a major mutation, and there's no such thing as a positive mutation. That's just teleology.
I said I bloke attempted to model given the darwin rules, such as; survival of the fittest, chance mutation of something positive happening, environmental factors, and other factors, and came up with a model equating that we shouldn't be as far evovled as we are given those rules.
But since we are... how?
For example, if one monkey mutated his thumb and became the first monkey with an opposable thumb, how long would it take for that monkey to propagate an entirely new species? Consider that for every major positive mutation and it becomes fathomable that evolution has some holes in it still. That's all i'm saying.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you do have a point. However, not all mutations act the same. Many mutations occur at spots on the genome where mutations are frequent, suggesting that variations in traits controlled by these genes don't mutate "randomly" as you might think. Also, alot of people who make this same timeline argument like to say "what's the chance of this many random mutations happening?" The odds of it happening are 1. The current species collection is not a goal that we had to achieve. That is to say, there is no "correct" form that humans had to reach. We could have been just as likely to evolve with tenticles, but we didn't.
Just so you know, I'm not fully convinced that the timeline is correct, either. But I'm not about to say that evolution is doubtful because of it.
Cool Blue wrote:
That to me is the most dangerous thinking in existance!
That's EXACTLY how people thought of physics while Einstien was alive. They just couldn't let their ego's go enough to be open to new ideas.
How else would you approach the world? "Nothing is true so fuck it." That doesn't work for me. As for the ego thing, well, that's a personal problem if you ask me. I'm not the type to beleive I have all the answers just because they fit the situation. If new facts arise to disprove something I thought was true, I'm likely to go, "Well I'll be fucked, guess that idea wasn't so hot after all."
Evolution may be flawed, but nothing of any worth is easilly attained. It likely does have large gaping holes that will be patched as our understanding of the nature of the universe grows. For now - it looks alright to me.
Cool Blue wrote:That to me is the most dangerous thinking in existance!
That's EXACTLY how people thought of physics while Einstien was alive. They just couldn't let their ego's go enough to be open to new ideas.
Let's get a few things straight on this.
1. the theory of evolution is relatively new compared to that of creationism (so evolution would be eintein's physics, not creationism)
2. nobody has had any "proof" of evolution that we know of for thousands of years (if you consider the bible proof)
Cool Blue wrote:That to me is the most dangerous thinking in existance!
That's EXACTLY how people thought of physics while Einstien was alive. They just couldn't let their ego's go enough to be open to new ideas.
Well, that's exactly what's going on with evolution. As new evidence emerges, the theory changes. Creationists/ID proponents are trying to poke holes in parts of the theory where evidence alerady exists, when they have no alternative to explain the evidence.
If you're so opposed to this sort of thinking, come up with a better theory. I guarantee you, if I see a better one come along, with good evidence, I'll support it.
It's like getting mad at Newtonians because they didn't accept Einstein before his theory was even out there.
I think it was what werldhead posted that got me up a little.
I stated something about evolving based on technological dependency, but he was dismissive of the idea until it was worded with more scientific terms by someone else. Seems like I get that a lot - I just want to make sure I am not considered in these discussions the way Kracus is thought of in his space threads.
Sorry, man, that's not what I meant at all. :icon17:
You were right about what you said. At first I thought you were wrong, but then thinking about it I realized that you were quite correct. I was going to agree with you, but I noticed Ryoki posted just what I wanted to say, so I quoted him. It was meant to convey that fact that you were right.
To answer your question, though, I've always thought you're smart and I enjoy reading your posts (I did long before I posted in gd, too. Back when I just lurked in LEM). You always have evidence to back up your claims. :icon14:
Just checking.
I wasn't fishing for one, but I'm flattered by the compliment.
