Author Topic: Evolution Explained  (Read 28955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #377 on: February 15, 2012, 08:17:39 AM »
Rhocam:

I'd like to help you get a Nobel Prize. Darwin listed ways to disprove his work in "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection."


So far, no one has been able to do it. Maybe you can. Give it a try.


http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/


edit typo
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 08:41:10 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4288
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #378 on: February 15, 2012, 09:26:06 AM »
oooh, i'm scared, evolution is the mockery of science. allow me to illustrate
The only mockery going on here is your own mockery of science, under the pretext that you understand it well enough to say that a specific branch of scientific theory, evolution, is not true, when you've demonstrated and continue to demonstrate that this is not the case.

Yet you provide no actual evidence or reasoned arguments about evolution.  You quote from other sources and claim that those quotes support your argument even though they do not, but the only thing you yourself do is make assertion after assertion which not only do not stand up on their own, but cannot.  And when confronted about this, you get belligerent and stubborn, rather than actually listening to people who might just know more than you about this.  You put the primacy of your cherished belief above the actual quest to discover truth; you place your ignorance in a shrine and hold it closely, yet insist that you're not the one being ignorant about the subject.

The fact that it is human nature to be reluctant to admit that one can be wrong about something is no excuse, because everyone has to deal with that inherent attitude.  It's up to you to show that you can overcome it, instead of clinging to it even while it drags you down like an anchor.

Quote from: rhocam
These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.
You mean these?

Quote
Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
 Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
 These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

Leaving aside the fact that you haven't actually shown why they cannot operate at the same time, I can very easily demonstrate that they can, and do.

First, heritable variation refers to the fact that organisms within a species have differences that can be passed down from one generation to the next.  This is true, and you can confirm it by examining these organisms and their DNA.  For example, humans have heritable differences in such areas as hair, eye, and skin pigmentation, musculature, bone density, height, and many others as well.

Second, organisms do produce more offspring than can naturally survive.  For example, before the advent of modern medicine, a significant minority (20-30% or more) of human children died long before they reached maturity and so precluded any possibility of passing on their genes.  Yet the human population consistently grew, if in fits and starts due to other factors such as disease epidemics and wars, because parents invariably had many children who survived to their majority.  This is true of every single species that has ever lived; for all the organisms which do not live long enough to reproduce, due to predation, accident, illness, or whatever, there are many more which do.

And third, offspring do vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.  When an epidemic strikes, some children die, while others survive.  This is the starkest possible demonstration of how this variation happens, but it occurs in many lesser ways too.  A naturally outgoing individual will be more likely to reproduce (in the long run) than one who is introverted and withdrawn, due to the simple fact that they meet more people and are more likely to find someone they're compatible with.  And even if they're not compatible in the long-term, they're still more likely to get children out of the deal.

All three of these are correct in their own right.  There is nothing about them which makes them somehow untrue when taken together.  The fact that some offspring do not survive does not eliminate hereditary variation; hereditary variation assuredly does not contradict the variation in the ability to survive and reproduce.  So I have clearly demonstrated that your assertion, that these three facts cannot work at the same time, is wrong.  Can you admit that you were and are wrong about this, and that every single argument you have advanced to try to contradict evolution has been countered?  Or will you persist in petulantly demanding that your opinion has to be right and evolution, despite all the weight of evidence and reasoning in support of it, has to be wrong?
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5963
  • Darwins +644/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #379 on: February 15, 2012, 09:55:29 AM »
rhocam,

If you can't respond to questions as to why you quoted scientists who accepted evolution as a fact, and whose quotes supported evolution, as proof that the sciences that support evolution supposedly don't agree with it, there is no need for you to post anything more.

Because that is proof you have nothing. Far more proof than we have of evolution (of which there is plenty).
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11501
  • Darwins +560/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #380 on: February 15, 2012, 10:25:37 AM »
Please cite the work of Emile Zuckerlandl's that you got this quote from.

appears to be found in the abstract here http://www.springerlink.com/content/pm3cyf4l0gm441v8/

Googling it shows that quote he used mainly appears on creationist sites where they almost certainly did not bother to read the whole report and do not understand what he was actually saying, only thinking that it sounded good to them.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #381 on: February 15, 2012, 10:56:46 AM »
Do Christians go out of thier way to make thier All-Loving, All-Knowing, All-Powerful god appear inept?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5963
  • Darwins +644/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #382 on: February 15, 2012, 11:18:33 AM »
Do Christians go out of thier way to make thier All-Loving, All-Knowing, All-Powerful god appear inept?

Nah, it's easy for them.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #383 on: February 15, 2012, 11:35:39 AM »
These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.

the whole post that this part came from is pure gold.  A lovely example of a creationist who has no idea what they just posted in an attempt to throw shit at a wall and hopign that it some of it sticks.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5963
  • Darwins +644/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #384 on: February 15, 2012, 11:50:12 AM »
Tell me about it. I googled "staples of evolution" and all I got was an office supply store.

It's hard to work with stuff like that. Even when I have a nice new box of pens.  ;D
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #385 on: February 15, 2012, 12:55:44 PM »
I am waiting. evolution is built by you. so defend it now. Where are your transitional forms

Rhocam, you have been asked several times to clarify what you are asking for.  In your own words, please detail what you mean by a "transitional form". 

I want you to do this in your own words, without copy & pasting quotes, to begin to demonstrate that you understand what you are asking for.
 


Transitional form. Take me to the place where the branches on the tree of live converge. what would that transitional form look like?
bear in mind the law of heredity, natural selection, and mathematical randomness.

Heredity requires genes to be present before they can be passed, they must be present in the parent.

Natural selection requires the progeny to be better than the parent.

You have neither and with these two laws in mind you are even unable to speculate what these transitional fossils would look like. Give me something.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #386 on: February 15, 2012, 12:56:37 PM »
These three staples of evolution cannot work at the same time. Therefore my statement regarding evolution and ignoring science stands.

the whole post that this part came from is pure gold.  A lovely example of a creationist who has no idea what they just posted in an attempt to throw shit at a wall and hopign that it some of it sticks.

I'm not the one polishing a turd and calling it science

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #387 on: February 15, 2012, 01:00:08 PM »
Tell me about it. I googled "staples of evolution" and all I got was an office supply store.

It's hard to work with stuff like that. Even when I have a nice new box of pens.  ;D

HA, funny but so true, cause you are right. there are no staples of evolution. You use the law which fits you theory. If there were staples I would pull them out and your "theory" would fall apart. So you keep shifting the goal posts, hoping that if I can't see them I wont reach them. The mistake you make is thinking there are goal posts.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #388 on: February 15, 2012, 01:01:48 PM »
Do Christians go out of thier way to make thier All-Loving, All-Knowing, All-Powerful god appear inept?

No, we are just human, so could never even begin to expalin Him, let alone describe Him in a way that another human could understand. But we love Him so we still try.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #389 on: February 15, 2012, 01:04:19 PM »
HA, funny but so true, cause you are right. there are no staples of evolution. You use the law which fits you theory. If there were staples I would pull them out and your "theory" would fall apart. So you keep shifting the goal posts, hoping that if I can't see them I wont reach them. The mistake you make is thinking there are goal posts.

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #390 on: February 15, 2012, 01:05:24 PM »
rhocam,

If you can't respond to questions as to why you quoted scientists who accepted evolution as a fact, and whose quotes supported evolution, as proof that the sciences that support evolution supposedly don't agree with it, there is no need for you to post anything more.

Because that is proof you have nothing. Far more proof than we have of evolution (of which there is plenty).

I quoted them to show that even though they believe it there still are holes in their theory. When you twist the truth to meet your end then you have evolution.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #391 on: February 15, 2012, 01:07:17 PM »
HA, funny but so true, cause you are right. there are no staples of evolution. You use the law which fits you theory. If there were staples I would pull them out and your "theory" would fall apart. So you keep shifting the goal posts, hoping that if I can't see them I wont reach them. The mistake you make is thinking there are goal posts.

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.

You first, give me an example of what you want. You want me to show my hand without revealing yours.

Offline One Above All

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9435
  • Darwins +223/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #392 on: February 15, 2012, 01:09:18 PM »
You first, give me an example of what you want. You want me to show my hand without revealing yours.

I know I'm not Omen, but he did say what he wanted. Stop dodging.

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.

Bold mine for emphasis.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #393 on: February 15, 2012, 01:13:03 PM »
Random drift, while indifferent to the functionality of the molecular features on which it acts, may nevertheless affect evolving molecular mechanisms. It can lead to functional novelty in either gene structure or regulation. In particular, a nearly neutral (in the sense of Ohta), somewhat deleterious mutation can result in a loss of efficiency in gene regulation, and this loss is expected at times to be compensated by a selected event of a particular type: the use of an additional regulatory factor. An accumulation of additional regulatory factors, implying a combination of events of drift and selection, can permit regulatory systems to achieve an increase in both specificity and complexity as mere byproducts of a particular repair process. Nearly neutral mutations thus may, at times, constitute a required pathway for increases in gene interaction complexity. The process seems to point to an inbuilt drive—built into the gene interaction system itself—toward the evolution of higher organisms. This is a matter worthy of experimental exploration, since the general foundations for the evolution of ``higher'' from ``lower'' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.

Neutral and Nonneutral Mutations: The Creative Mix—Evolution of Complexity in Gene Interaction Systems
Emile Zuckerkandl
emphasis added by me

He is claiming that random drift may not be random? Then you are again ignoring one of your own ideas (that's what I'll call it now, to avoid confusing you) In order to try to "prove" you faith.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #394 on: February 15, 2012, 01:19:42 PM »
You first, give me an example of what you want. You want me to show my hand without revealing yours.

I know I'm not Omen, but he did say what he wanted. Stop dodging.

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.

Bold mine for emphasis.

Descent. The passing of genes from parent to progeny. also identified an inheritance. genes are passed along from one generation to the next.
 
 

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #395 on: February 15, 2012, 01:23:00 PM »
HA, funny but so true, cause you are right. there are no staples of evolution. You use the law which fits you theory. If there were staples I would pull them out and your "theory" would fall apart. So you keep shifting the goal posts, hoping that if I can't see them I wont reach them. The mistake you make is thinking there are goal posts.

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.

You first, give me an example of what you want. You want me to show my hand without revealing yours.

You've already made dozens of unsupported assertions about 'evolution'; you've offered disparaging, dismissive, and really unexplained qualifications that constantly refer back to 'evolution' without much detail or even an attempt to describe it.  It is not our burden to argue for your claim, you're the one who makes it.

So:

Demonstrate that you can even appreciably define an evolutionary mechanism as presented in a basic introduction to biology textbook.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #396 on: February 15, 2012, 01:26:15 PM »
Descent. The passing of genes from parent to progeny. also identified an inheritance. genes are passed along from one generation to the next.

The passing of genes is not evolution, it is certainly an aspect involved in evolution, but as literally defined it is not 'evolution' in and of itself.  Evolution is instead the measure of change of inherited characteristics.  Evolution also encompasses a wide range of evolutionary mechanisms, scientific theories that provide explanatory mechanisms on how various types of evolutionary changes occur.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #397 on: February 15, 2012, 01:28:16 PM »
No, we are just human, so could never even begin to expalin Him, let alone describe Him in a way that another human could understand. But we love Him so we still try.

You love him, so you refuse to let him use his own words thru you like Moses, Levi, Joshua, Elijah, Isiah, Samuel, etc, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. did? Gee, if I love my wife, one of the last things I would do, would be to put words in her mouth. But you show your love by putting words in his mouth.

Let Christ be the Brain, and let his words flow from your mouth. Let Christ be the brain and let his words flow thru your fingers. That's why you cannot explain him... you won't let him speak.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11501
  • Darwins +560/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #398 on: February 15, 2012, 01:31:51 PM »
Heredity requires genes to be present before they can be passed, they must be present in the parent.

But it need not be expressed.  It may be a recessive gene.  Blue eye genes are present in many people who have brown eyes, but they are not expressed.

Natural selection requires the progeny to be better than the parent.

No, it doesn't.  It just requires that the progeny be successful enough to pass on the trait.

Where do you get your ideas from, man?  You don't sound stupid, just horribly, horribly miseducated.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #399 on: February 15, 2012, 01:32:10 PM »
The validity of natural selection as a mechanism can be demonstrated by simple coding.  A non-random selective variation is combined with random variation, with the result being an evolving structured natural synthesis.  The promotion of those characteristics are only reliant upon the non-random selective variation and there is no such thing as 'better', qualitative statements can only be made in the measure of how efficient or non-efficient two different structures might be in achieving the same goal.  Thus a hand with an opposable thumb is qualitatively more adapt at grasping then a hand without an opposable thumb.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #400 on: February 15, 2012, 01:34:15 PM »
The point being, in that natural selection can be demonstrated by simple coding, is that as a mechanism it actually works as described.  You can actually simulate non-random selective variation in combination with random variation and produce results that are similar to what see reflected in the fossil record and organic life today.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #401 on: February 15, 2012, 01:41:16 PM »
Case in point: !

The non-random selective variation is the selective criteria for survival, in this case the non-random selective variation is the speed of swimming.  Random variation is the shape and structure of the simulated organism, which changes how it is capable of movement in the simulation.  Note that the simulation produces polygonal artificial organisms that evolve to a point where they move like various kinds of organisms swim through the water today.  None of the elements of the artificial organisms that evolve out of the simulation are programmed prior to running the simulation, they are produced within the coded limitations of Darwinian natural selection.

Again, the point is to emphasize that before we even begin to see if evolution works in the real world, that we can demonstrate conclusively that it works as a process and in simulations.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5963
  • Darwins +644/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #402 on: February 15, 2012, 01:47:40 PM »
rhocam,

If you can't respond to questions as to why you quoted scientists who accepted evolution as a fact, and whose quotes supported evolution, as proof that the sciences that support evolution supposedly don't agree with it, there is no need for you to post anything more.

Because that is proof you have nothing. Far more proof than we have of evolution (of which there is plenty).

I quoted them to show that even though they believe it there still are holes in their theory. When you twist the truth to meet your end then you have evolution.

No, you quoted them because you didn't know what the f**k you were talking about.

Incomplete information because of the inability to research everything at once does not qualify as a hole in the theory. It means we're still learning. And as long the new stuff we learn doesn't prove the old stuff completely wrong, making adjustments is fairly easy. When I was a kid, biologists didn't know how photosynthesis worked. Now they do. Was it a hole in biological theories that they didn't know the specifics? Or just a lack in knowing how to find the truth?

You are saying that what Emile Zuckerkandl found means that random drift may not be random. That's enough for you. "May not" means god did it to you. It means that there may be feedback loops to me. You think "inbuilt drive" means god did it. The good Dr. Zuckerkandi seems to think that it happens through a mechanism that evolved along with the rest of the cell. But you keep quoting him and not bolding the part where he says "It can lead to functional novelty in either gene structure or regulation." That sounds too much like evolution. You can't have that now, can you.

At no point did Dr. Zuckerkandi stand up and say "Hey fellas, it's looking like god did it." Nor did he hide the naughty bits you think indicate otherwise. I'm not quite sure why you think his research controversial. If he were being ignored,

It ain't wikipedia, but here is a summary of his accomplishments:

Quote
Emile Zuckerkandl is one of the founding fathers of the field of molecular evolution. In the 1960s, through examining both the constancy and the changes occurring in life’s informational macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and protein), he pointed out that these molecules provided unparalleled knowledge about the past of genes and organisms. He discovered the existence and significance of macromolecular sequence homology independently of Vernon Ingram, recognized the basic importance for evolution of gene duplication, and predicted the resolution of the great multiplicity of proteins into a relatively small number of homology groups. He argued that new proteins can in general be evolved only from old proteins, postulated the existence of pseudogenes, and recognized that not only genes but also certain gene interaction patterns can be extremely ancient. In collaborative work with Linus Pauling, he formulated the molecular clock hypothesis and published the first molecular phylogenetic tree. He was first to emphasize the importance for evolution of regulatory changes in genes relative to structural changes and to recognize that phenotypic changes are likely most frequently attributable to merely quantitative changes in gene expression. Regarding the role of extensive stretches of chromatin in gene regulation, he focused on “sectorial” gene repression and gene potentiation in development. He repeatedly pointed to functions of so-called junk DNA, such as the role of heterochromatin in cell determination and the use of extensive stretches of noncoding DNA by developmental regulatory genes as binding sites for proteins that determine the structure and regulatory effects of chromatin. He emphasized that a ready changeability and dispensability of DNA sequences does not imply their nonfunctionality. He analyzed evolutionary fates of programs of gene action, predicted that a greater complexity of gene interaction networks would be found in “higher” compared to “lower” organisms, and recognized that an evolutionary increase in regulatory complexity represents primarily a trend intrinsic to the internal molecular environment, with the external environment having only to concur.

I don't see "being ignored by evolutionist cretins" anywhere in there. What am I missing.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #403 on: February 15, 2012, 01:49:22 PM »
A scientific argument is not made by misquoting other scientist.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5963
  • Darwins +644/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #404 on: February 15, 2012, 01:56:33 PM »
A scientific argument is not made by misquoting other scientist.

It is if you're desperate  :D
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4288
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #405 on: February 15, 2012, 01:59:03 PM »
rhocam:  I'm still waiting for you to either admit that you were wrong about the three primary factors in evolution, that you cited as not being able to work together but that easily can be shown to do so, or to intelligently rebut my argument.  Silence in this will only demonstrate that you cannot rebut and are not willing to admit that you are wrong.  If you do choose to rebut, I expect you to do so using your own words to show that you comprehend the subject matter.  You cannot make an argument by only copy-pasting someone else's words.  You only show that you have no argument at all when you do that.

There is no shame in admitting that you might be wrong about something, especially if it is a subject that you are not very knowledgeable about, as you clearly are not knowledgeable about evolutionary theory.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.