|
On May 21 2009 02:54 Chef wrote:
You must be trolling lol.
Hereditary traits and genetic mutations in human beings are enough for me to believe in evolution, let alone all the fossils that strongly suggest it's true. I'm not saying it's infallible and there might be another cause... But there's nothing to suggest it yet.
dude, im just trying to get you to see the absurdity of the statement "i believe in evolution". there is no doubt that the human brain was not always this advanced. there is no doubt that the information carried by our sperm is the way it is based on our parents and theirs. but when we start trying to systematize it. we lose the spirit of it all. you cant put a framework on everything. you'll end up living in a museum.
|
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite.
|
On May 21 2009 03:01 koreasilver wrote:
HOLE, BRO.
NAH, I HIDE EVERYWHERE YO.
|
Biology knowledge trumps Psychology knowledge when talking about evolution. Sorry.
I'm gonna go pray to Charles Darwin and sacrifice a few endangered species before I have to go to work.
|
On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite.
who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak :
primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo
On May 21 2009 03:19 Lemonwalrus wrote:
Biology knowledge trumps Psychology knowledge when talking about evolution. Sorry.
I'm gonna go pray to Charles Darwin and sacrifice a few endangered species before I have to go to work.
apoloy is unnecessary. but you would do well to lose the sarcasm. that is a sign of frustration.
the gentleman says that regarding evolution: bioknow > psyknow
yea. that is if you are trying to explain evolution. i am trying to explain why evolution is a topic for discussion. that is a psyknow question which has nothing to do with bioknow.
|
I love TL.
Also for your friend. Go tell him to read Darwin's Evolution and stop watching Pokemon/Digimon
|
On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. that is if you are trying to explain evolution. i am trying to explain why evolution is a topic for discussion. Oh... you didn't explain that before ^^ Now you start to make a liiiitle bit of sense :p
|
On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo
Psst.
I was being sarcastic.
Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely and hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world.
You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world.
|
On May 21 2009 03:07 Chef wrote:
Why don't we just get it over with become 4teamliquid-chan? -.-
/b/logs
|
On May 21 2009 03:29 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo Psst. I was being sarcastic.Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world. You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world.
unless the universe started at ground zero Earth then i think me beliefs hold much merit. we are stardust man. that fossil they found... it is stardust. evolution is a great coffee table discussion. but it is honestly one of the most arrogant suppositions that man has come up with. i do not deny the validity of its claims but i do deny the benefit it offers. i deny the need for evolution. it is the wrong way for us to proceed. and positing "evolution" just begs so many other questions.
the fit do not survive because they are fit. they survive because they can adapt. because they have spirit and strong will. success is not passively biological. rather, it is active will.
|
Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:24 Caller wrote:
Again, your friend's argument that the sudden change of a male and a female of a given type to turn into a different species demonstrates ignorance of how it works. Like I said, the various changes accumulate in these different variations of the same species until they become no longer able to reproduce with the original parent's type to produce a viable child. However, keep in mind that organisms have multiple offspring, and due to the processes of crossing over and random mutation, the offspring will be different from each other. But these changes are gradual-a gorilla didn't give birth to a baby. This is also expected by entropy[sic]. Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:34 Lemonwalrus wrote:
this type of speculation of evolution is crazy.
This theory would require an entire species, or at least one male and one female, to evolve into the exact same thing at relatively the same time.
Evolution is a SLOW process. Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 01:41 VorcePA wrote:
Consider that things don't have to be exactly perfect for mating to work. Donkeys can mate with horses and you get a mule, for instance.
Humans even have different DNA depending on their location. Africans are typically black from hundreds or thousands of years of living in an environment with very little shade, and have adapted to it by having skin with much better protection than white people do. The natives of northern canada/alaska typically have an easier time gaining weight than someone in, say, Mexico, in order to retain heat.
DNA just has to be somewhere close in order for mating to be successful, and it takes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years for evolution to make such a significant impact on a species that it can no longer mate with its ancestral link. Meanwhile, the maximum life of animal organisms is a couple of hundred years (sea turtles/certain birds), and all of them, including us, are pre-programmed to mate like crazy.
It's not just possible, it's probable that humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and as one got smaller and stood up straight, the other got bigger and much, much stronger.
I don't understand this argument. The question was, "If different species cannot breed with one another, how does evolution explain the creation of species: obviously a mutation that results in inability to breed with existing species will not be selected for?" The response was, "Evolution proceeds in gradual stages, and the ability to interbreed with the original species is lost long after the emergent species is on its way."
Here's what I don't understand: ignore all the years before and after--let's focus on the precise point where ability to interbreed is lost. I.e. the parents can breed with species X and subspecies Y, but the child(ren) can only breed with species Y. Logically, in going between "able-to-breed" and "unable-to-interbreed" such a point must be reached.
This would imply that it is biologically possible to have a situation where species Z (the intermediate stage) can breed with species X and with species Y, but X and Y cannot breed with each other (the relation is not transitive, if you like). Do we have any evidence that such a thing is possible? Has anything like that ever been observed? If not, the objection seems to have been insufficiently addressed.
As far as I can see, macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) is by nature a theory for which it is hard to adduce firm evidence. Sure, you can point to the fossil record, but after all, what does that show? Simply that species once existed (and have since died out) that were more or less similar to us. But you don't need fossils to show that: just look at all of the living creatures in the world that are very similar to each other--some of them can even interbreed. At core, macroevolution's principle motivation remains what it always was: to explain the origin of species. (Personally I feel that trying to explain the origin of species independently of the origin of anything else is as pointless as trying to find infinity by adding one to the biggest number that you can think of.)
|
i think many people confuse evolution with adaptation(such as change in enviornment, well when its called birds fly south, bears hibernate they dont evolve they adapt), and mutation with change (about 100 percent of mutations are negative, would you like to be expose to enoromous amounts of radiation and like to see the postive mutations), and also forget that evolution does not and never will explain how life began... In my opnion there is a discussion/debate on the topic there is no end all be all authority on this matter and its obvious there is a difference of opnion, and no there is no science to prove the theory of evolution but there is much science to disapprove it. and yes people use generalizations and strawman arguments because evolutionist are constantly changing the theory.. darwin could not have imagined the complexity of a cell. please be a proponent of your on ideas and dont be lead by these lies i use to believe in evolution as well because it is what we are taught but everything we are taught is killing us, i dont get the anger aswell, i believe it just shows about how much you care about what other people think and are mindless blind fool. question everything, because its obvious some of us are still sleeping and having waking up to the reality of this world and how much we have failed..
|
On May 21 2009 03:44 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 03:29 koreasilver wrote:On May 21 2009 03:21 omninmo wrote:On May 21 2009 03:12 koreasilver wrote:
Lets worship the anunaki instead, amirite. who said anything about worshiping anything. alas, my words fail to penetrate the cloud of sarcasm and apathy. oh well i will try this in newspeak : primate pwnage < non dogmatic wombo combo Psst. I was being sarcastic.Beyond that anyway, how in the world does your belief that all life on this planet has originated from otherworldly beings have any more merit than anything that science puts forth as the truth? You talk about how the common mass are dogmatic fools that eat up whatever the scientific elite give them, but you put your own completely hilariously unsubstantiated idea as the "truth" and look down upon those that have a different view of the world. You are just another one of the common fools that live on this world. unless the universe started at ground zero Earth then i think me beliefs hold much merit. we are stardust man. that fossil they found... it is stardust. evolution is a great coffee table discussion. but it is honestly one of the most arrogant suppositions that man has come up with. i do not deny the validity of its claims but i do deny the benefit it offers. i deny the need for evolution. it is the wrong way for us to proceed. the fit do not survive because they are fit. they survive because they can adapt. because they have spirit and strong will. success is not passively biological. rather, it is active will.
If we're going to talk about evolution, then actually discuss the flaws of the theories that you find instead of your worthless pseudo-intellect shit that any half-read adolescent can spew.
You didn't address anything in this post.
|
On May 21 2009 03:53 Weaponx3 wrote:
i think many people confuse evolution with adaptation(such as change in enviornment, well when its called birds fly south, bears hibernate they dont evolve they adapt), and mutation with change (about 100 percent of mutations are negative, would you like to be expose to enoromous amounts of radiation and like to see the postive mutations), and also forget that evolution does not and never will explain how life began... In my opnion there is a discussion/debate on the topic there is no end all be all authority on this matter and its obvious there is a difference of opnion, and no there is no science to prove the theory of evolution but there is much science to disapprove it. and yes people use generalizations and strawman arguments because evolutionist are constantly changing the theory.. darwin could not have imagined the complexity of a cell. please be a proponent of your on ideas and dont be lead by these lies i use to believe in evolution as well because it is what we are taught but everything we are taught is killing us, i dont get the anger aswell, i believe it just shows about how much you care about what other people think and are mindless blind fool. question everything, because its obvious some of us are still sleeping and having waking up to the reality of this world and how much we have failed..
sunlight breaks through the canopy. dawning of a new day. a fog is lifted. the obelisk continues on its voyage.
|
인터넷에 나오는 스타 게이머들
왠지 다 바보갓다
시발, 토론을 못하니까 씨를쓰고 자빠졌어?
너 갔은 놈들때문에 새상 말쎄다.
|
|
|
omninmo, you are missing something really important here. It is logically impossible to prove a theory as 'truth', we can prove something is false, but never that something else is true. That is science 101. So for practical reasons we assume as 'truth' something that fits our practical needs. It's as simple as that.
Newton's gravity theory that mass attracts mass, F=m.a, earth's gravity at the surface is approximately 9.8m/s².. etc. That is all wrong and have been proven wrong a long long time ago. But engineers still use that today. Why? It's very simple. It fits our practical needs: You want o build a building that stands still and doesn't fall down -> you assume that earth's gravity is 9.8 -> building doesn't fall down -> mission accomplished. But if you are trying to calculate how subatomic particles behave to build a Large Hadron Collider you're gonna scrap much of what Newton said.
Of course what Darwin said a century ago isn't 100% accurate, nothing is. Nothing will ever be. That is the nature of science. But if it fits whatever practical needs that you need that theory for. Than it is 'true' for your specific needs.
|
Species evolve and apapt according to climate and natural selection, so many trees of evolvants(?) could come from one species and differing environments. BYAH!
250th
|
I'm staying out of here because I will become angry with omninmo.
|
On May 21 2009 02:51 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 02:32 Boonbag wrote:
Creatures don't evolve. They either merge or morph and outrange you, eventually.
Thread was complete at this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/9/9c/Guardian_SC1_GameAnim1.gif)
