|
On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post  that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight.
I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul.
So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you:
You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing.
If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing.
- If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
|
On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
I'm still interested to know how birds evolved from dinosaurs, when we have literally no evidence of any 'birds' being in existence during the time of dinosaurs, couple the fact that dinosaurs went extinct in an abysmally short amount of time. We can see that birds have genetic traces of dinosaur traits (such as long tails with many bones, reminscent of fossilized dinosaur tails), however, we don't even understand the processes that it takes to go from a dinosaur to a bird, yet we know that we went from this thing apparently, to where we are today.
And you know what they came up with to try and solve this little 'problem'? Apparently, mutations occur at the same time. So, there goes the probability / randomness of mutation / evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html
What asinine science. At least with carbon dating we know for a fact the decay rate of carbon. There is no way to prove the decay rate of 'mutations'. Of course, they throw this out there as if the word of science is infallible and needs no explanation to readers...take it at face value! Sounds awfully like something much of you rail against here.
|
On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence.
Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
|
|
|
On May 21 2009 13:50 cUrsOr wrote:
Reptiles vs Mammals
Thank god we won out in the end 
|
On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
In todays world, most everyone is breeding.
Edit: So are you saying those that are less intelligent, or physically less strong, or just average are more likely to pass on their genes?
Your question is inane.
The likelyhood over other variations doesn't matter as long as the genes are passed along. They should show up at some point by the process of exponential rates should they not?
|
On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3
But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things.
What's your point in posting?
|
On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes?
Nope. Sadly not in this day and age.
but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!!
I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
|
i dont like the stronger = better idea of evolution.
isnt the new thing more about finding a niche in the system? filling a role, as in consuming things that are abundant and being adapted to the environment. the species that filled the niche the best survive, not really the "Strongest". survival of the fittest=best fit... not strongest.
|
On May 21 2009 13:53 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3 But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things. What's your point in posting?
How do you predict mutations that are random? Within that, how do you predict what kind of mutation, since apparently, there are so many genes and numbers of possible mutations its staggering (earlier posters words).
|
On May 21 2009 13:53 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes? Nope. Sadly not in this day and age. but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!! I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol
We will be cyborgs before that ever happens.
|
On May 21 2009 13:53 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3 But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things. What's your point in posting?
We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!!
Scientific Method:
1. Ask a question
2.Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.)
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that)
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that)
6.Report your results (cant do that either)
So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.)
|
On May 21 2009 13:56 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:53 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes? Nope. Sadly not in this day and age. but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!! I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol We will be cyborgs before that ever happens.
that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone?
I for one would love to have a cyber brain <3
|
On May 21 2009 13:55 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3 But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things. What's your point in posting? How do you predict mutations that are random? Within that, how do you predict what kind of mutation, since apparently, there are so many genes and numbers of possible mutations its staggering (earlier posters words).
You can't predict something that's random but I wouldn't know how you would predict anything about the nature of the mutations.
|
On May 21 2009 13:58 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3 But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things. What's your point in posting? We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!! Scientific Method: 1. Ask a question 2.Do background research 3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.) 4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that) 5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that) 6.Report your results (cant do that either) So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.)
Evolutionary hypothesis: Genes are mutated which are then passed onto the next generation. If this mutation becomes a trait of the species then we can say that the species has evolved.
Do we agree on the hypothesis? If yes then I'll continue.
|
The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
|
On May 21 2009 14:03 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:58 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:53 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:47 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:37 Wohmfg wrote:On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off? I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual? It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it. I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless? hehe. I see that we are a bit prickly tonight. I really don't want to respond to your 'puke onto keyboard' of a post but i almost feel a need to, a burning desire deep within my soul. So my pseudo- intellectual friend, i will appease you: You clearly don't understand that homeostatic condition inside living things is a huge process, all carefully controlled, dependent, and connect to everything inside of said living thing. If you don't understand everything- you fail to understand the entire biological complex of the living thing. - If a scientist has ever proven, or at least made a significant leap forward in mans understanding of evolutionary theory, nobel prizes would have been awarded. However this is not the case. From the simple fact that you (myself included) show a very limited understanding of simple metabolic functioning inside of the body is proof enough that you do not respect the complexity that is life. This complexity (should you chose to ever hope to embark on unraveling it) will hopefully show you why this conversation among pseudo-intellectuals is so heart warming. <3 But our explanations of evolution are adequate. We have models and theories that show why things happen and predict what will happen, these can be tested and proved. Just because we don't have complete knowledge doesn't mean we can't attempt to understand things. What's your point in posting? We have models and theories that cannot be tested? ohh snap. Science we have a problem. This is going against our most sacred of all doctrines! The scientific method no!!!!!! Scientific Method: 1. Ask a question 2.Do background research 3. Construct a hypothesis (Really this is where evolution for the time being should stay.) 4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment (cant do that) 5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion (cant do that) 6.Report your results (cant do that either) So coming from my devils advocate point of view- is evolution a theory? no- is it a hypothesis? yes. can evolution become fact? Yes (but right now, we just don't know enough about anything.) Evolutionary hypothesis: Genes are mutated which are then passed onto the next generation. If this mutation becomes a trait of the species then we can say that the species has evolved. Do we agree on the hypothesis? If yes then I'll continue.
Sure- but do you have any empirical data? or is this simply conjecture.
|
On May 21 2009 13:59 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:56 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 13:53 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes? Nope. Sadly not in this day and age. but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!! I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol We will be cyborgs before that ever happens. that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone? I for one would love to have a cyber brain <3
But if you replace your brain are you still Misrah 
|
On May 21 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote:
If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes? In todays world, most everyone is breeding. Edit: So are you saying those that are less intelligent, or physically less strong, or just average are more likely to pass on their genes? Your question is inane. The likelyhood over other variations doesn't matter as long as the genes are passed along. They should show up at some point by the process of exponential rates should they not?
You weren't talking about the species as a whole? Then what's the problem? Incredibly strong individuals and incredibly intelligent individuals exist.
|
On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote:
The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations.
Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
