Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2008, 11:14 AM   #51
SupportTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa. AKA, SUCK CENTRAL!
Posts: 3,344
evolution was a validated theory recently with a butterfly that was dying out.

it was being killed off by a bacteria. they were watching the population pretty much die right off. the awesome part was it was on a island so it was nice and isolated from much outside influence.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...utterfly.shtml

They watched a genetic mutation occur. it was fairly minor but it was a bacteria resistant mutation. the population started to rise again.

This was Observed while it was occurring.


Now. i can Guarantee there wouldn't have been a fossil record of this event.

the condition for fossil creation is rare. its so rare that catching a species evolving in on is about as likly as you getting hit by a meteorite.

So having creationists tout the Lack of fossil records is not exactly a good argument.
__________________
Everyone has The Right to MY opinion!
Everyone also has the right to be Stupid every now and then. Some people Don't know how Not to abuse that!

70 Warrior - Affliction

If someone tells you it's OK to lie. How do you know they aren't lying?
SupportTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 11:22 AM   #52
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by SupportTank View Post
evolution was a validated theory recently with a butterfly that was dying out.

it was being killed off by a bacteria. they were watching the population pretty much die right off. the awesome part was it was on a island so it was nice and isolated from much outside influence.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...utterfly.shtml

They watched a genetic mutation occur. it was fairly minor but it was a bacteria resistant mutation. the population started to rise again.

This was Observed while it was occurring.


Now. i can Guarantee there wouldn't have been a fossil record of this event.

the condition for fossil creation is rare. its so rare that catching a species evolving in on is about as likly as you getting hit by a meteorite.

So having creationists tout the Lack of fossil records is not exactly a good argument.

That article is actually quite laughable. It doesn't "prove" evolution in the slightest sense.

NOWHERE in there do you see them proving a causal link between the mutation and natural selection.

Hell, they even admit it in the article: "It is not yet clear whether the suppressor gene emerged from a chance mutation from within the local population, or if it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation had already been established."

For every example of some random "chance mutation" occuring in nature that saves a species from extinction, I'm sure there are countless, if not thousands, of examples where a species dies off from a similar bacterial infection or any number of other causes that "evolution" couldn't overcome.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 11:24 AM   #53
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by Axgar View Post
Think and you will understand.
I didn't know you were a Buddhist Axgar..

I can't think about something that makes absolutely no sense however.. I truly have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to make in your post. I highly doubt anyone else on this board has any clue either.

Originally Posted by SupportTank
evolution was a validated theory recently with a butterfly that was dying out.

it was being killed off by a bacteria. they were watching the population pretty much die right off. the awesome part was it was on a island so it was nice and isolated from much outside influence.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...utterfly.shtml

They watched a genetic mutation occur. it was fairly minor but it was a bacteria resistant mutation. the population started to rise again.

This was Observed while it was occurring.


Now. i can Guarantee there wouldn't have been a fossil record of this event.

the condition for fossil creation is rare. its so rare that catching a species evolving in on is about as likly as you getting hit by a meteorite.

So having creationists tout the Lack of fossil records is not exactly a good argument.
That's the problem with the anti-evolution arguments.. none of them really hold any water. Sure they can point out the holes in evolutionary theory.. holes that evolutionists admit are there and are looking for answers for.. but they can't admit the holes in their own crackpot theories... since most of the holes in theirs involve the very foundations of their beliefs.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 11:31 AM   #54
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
That's the problem with the anti-evolution arguments.. none of them really hold any water. Sure they can point out the holes in evolutionary theory..

Pointing out flaws and "holes" in evolutionary theories seem to hold plenty of water as far as arguments go, Gurgle.

Pointing out flaws and holes in ANY theory would be arguments I'd consider to "hold water"


If it was fact, evolution wouldn't be considered a theory.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 11:53 AM   #55
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
^ Yet another example of our schools to teach the basics of science. Or maybe just a failure of the student. The whole "fact vs. theory" thing has been done to death by now. Anyone who can't understand proper usage of the term "theory" in science is either trolling or beyond any hope of education.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 12:01 PM   #56
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by furo View Post
Pointing out flaws and "holes" in evolutionary theories seem to hold plenty of water as far as arguments go, Gurgle.

Pointing out flaws and holes in ANY theory would be arguments I'd consider to "hold water"


If it was fact, evolution wouldn't be considered a theory.
Actually, it's considered fact AND theory.. similar to Gravity.

Here is a nice writeup on it..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 01:56 PM   #57
SupportTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa. AKA, SUCK CENTRAL!
Posts: 3,344
Originally Posted by furo View Post
That article is actually quite laughable. It doesn't "prove" evolution in the slightest sense.

NOWHERE in there do you see them proving a causal link between the mutation and natural selection.

Hell, they even admit it in the article: "It is not yet clear whether the suppressor gene emerged from a chance mutation from within the local population, or if it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation had already been established."

For every example of some random "chance mutation" occuring in nature that saves a species from extinction, I'm sure there are countless, if not thousands, of examples where a species dies off from a similar bacterial infection or any number of other causes that "evolution" couldn't overcome.
dude thats the whole point of evolution DUUUUH way to own yer self there
__________________
Everyone has The Right to MY opinion!
Everyone also has the right to be Stupid every now and then. Some people Don't know how Not to abuse that!

70 Warrior - Affliction

If someone tells you it's OK to lie. How do you know they aren't lying?
SupportTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:12 PM   #58
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by SupportTank View Post
dude thats the whole point of evolution DUUUUH way to own yer self there
Oh really? how so?

It seems apparent that the theory in this article is the mutation occured to protect the species from extinction, i.e. a mutation in the genes that overcame the bacteria and led to natural selection.

However, this article offers no proof as to why this mutation occurred ... and that is the LARGEST phenomenon within evolution theory that is yet to be proven: the "why"
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:16 PM   #59
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Fafner
Yet another example of our schools to teach the basics of science.
And yet another example of you failing to put together a simple sentence that is grammatically correct. So where'd you learn that?

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
The whole "fact vs. theory" thing has been done to death by now. Anyone who can't understand proper usage of the term "theory" in science is either trolling or beyond any hope of education.
And yet just another example of people thinking scientists are the end-all and be-all of anything.

If you think about it, the word "theory" here is applicable only insofar as their own definition: a summation of observable events (facts).

Anywhere outside the scientific community, the word "theory" isn't the same.

Hence the notion that nothing in science is proven. Science is not like math. Even scientists will tell you that.

So yes I understand the term "theory" as it applies to science and I will still state that evolution in the context of creationism vs evolution is a "theory" (i.e. it is unproven in its entirety ... phenomenon unexplained like gene mutation, etc.)

Last edited by furo; 04-23-2008 at 02:24 PM.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:23 PM   #60
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by furo View Post
And yet just another example of people thinking scientists are the end-all and be-all of anything.

If you think about it, the word "theory" here is applicable only insofar as their own definition: a summation of observable events (facts).

Anywhere outside the scientific community, the word "theory" isn't the same.

Hence the notion that nothing in science is proven. Science is not like math. Even scientists will tell you that.

So yes I understand the term "theory" as it applies to science and I will still state that evolution in the context of creationism vs evolution is a "theory" (i.e. it is unproven in its entirety ... phenomenon unexplained like gene mutation, etc.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

(I'll just keep posting this link until Furo reads it)

That evolution occurred, is a scientific fact. How it occurred is the theory part.

In other words.. evolution occurred.. exactly how it occurred is the part we are not completely sure about.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:27 PM   #61
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

(I'll just keep posting this link until Furo reads it)

That evolution occurred, is a scientific fact. How it occurred is the theory part.

In other words.. evolution occurred.. exactly how it occurred is the part we are not completely sure about.
A "scientific fact" is nothing more than an observance of an event or a measurement. The article you cite here completely fucks that up. Examples are the history of the Earth for starters. That is pure theory. The article might as well declare the Big Bang as fact while they're at it.

"Evolution" occuring ... meaning the change of species ... is obvious yes.

But what exactly has been "observed" and "measured?" Have scientists been measuring and observing the evidence necessary to support macroevolution of the human species?

I think not.

And it's not just the "how" that is debatable .. or in question still ... more importantly .. it is the "why" ... behind issues like gene mutation.

Until the causal link is established and proven, then evolution as a theory will never change.

Edit: To reiterate my point about evolution as a theory and about scientists defining their own little world, let's not forget the traditional interpretation of evolution for the purposes of the debate between creationism vs evolution:

Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

Last edited by furo; 04-23-2008 at 02:42 PM.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:44 PM   #62
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by furo View Post
A "scientific fact" is nothing more than an observance of an event or a measurement. The article you cite here completely fucks that up. Examples are the history of the Earth for starters. That is pure theory. The article might as well declare the Big Bang as fact while they're at it.
so.. you are saying the following paragraph, from the link I provided, is all theory?

[SIZE="2"]"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun."[/SIZE]

These are all facts.. observable facts.

Originally Posted by Furo
"Evolution" occuring ... meaning the change of species ... is obvious yes.

And it's not just the "how" that is debatable .. or in question still ... more importantly .. it is the "why" ... behind issues like gene mutation.

Until the causal link is established and proven, then evolution as a theory will never change.
So, how do you propose that species change? Do the faries that push the Moon around the Earth come down at night and change species to better deal with the changing enviornments around them?
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:49 PM   #63
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Oh and since I read your biased little article Gurgle, why don't you take a gander at the other side seen here:


The Theory of Evolution

And you'll see why it is theory in both the scientific AND general sense of the word.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 02:52 PM   #64
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
so.. you are saying the following paragraph, from the link I provided, is all theory?

Most of it is, yes, and that's using the definition of "fact" that scientists use. Were you running around 3.6 billion years ago taking measurements and observing the beginning of the Earth?

Originally Posted by Gurgle
So, how do you propose that species change? Do the faries that push the Moon around the Earth come down at night and change species to better deal with the changing enviornments around them?
Fundamental error of yours: confusing adaptation with evolution.

Read up on the subjects, Gurgle. Come back when you have a clue.

Hell, I will even make it easy on you. You can look at an evolutionist's perspective to see why you don't even understand evolution from the scientific standpoint, gurgle:

evolution explained

This is why “need,” “try,” and “want” are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not “want” or “try” to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism “needs.” Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Note the polar bear in the picture saying "what I need is a good fur coat."

Notice that is NOT how evolution works .. species don't "evolve" to overcome the environmental hazards or fight off diseases.

That's the fundamental error of yours here: confusing adaptation with evolution.

Adaptation has been proven ... while the theory of evolution has not.

Last edited by furo; 04-23-2008 at 03:05 PM.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:16 PM   #65
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
I didn't know you were a Buddhist Axgar..

I can't think about something that makes absolutely no sense however.. I truly have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to make in your post. I highly doubt anyone else on this board has any clue either.

That's the problem with the anti-evolution arguments.. none of them really hold any water. Sure they can point out the holes in evolutionary theory.. holes that evolutionists admit are there and are looking for answers for.. but they can't admit the holes in their own crackpot theories... since most of the holes in theirs involve the very foundations of their beliefs.
Yet you claim to understand evolution....... yep.

you want to talk about not holding water evolution is a big fucking drain of crap
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:23 PM   #66
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Furo
It seems apparent that the theory in this article is the mutation occured to protect the species from extinction, i.e. a mutation in the genes that overcame the bacteria and led to natural selection.

However, this article offers no proof as to why this mutation occurred ... and that is the LARGEST phenomenon within evolution theory that is yet to be proven: the "why"
Mutations don't occur so that an organism or species can adapt. They just occur, which is why the article pointed out that researchers aren't sure if the gene emerged as a chance mutation or if it was introduced from another population.

As a side note, this study doesn't prove that evolution is the source of all biodiversity on the planet. It does, however, support adaptation by natural selection, which is the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:30 PM   #67
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Beal View Post
Mutations don't occur so that an organism or species can adapt. They just occur, which is why the article pointed out that researchers aren't sure if the gene emerged as a chance mutation or if it was introduced from another population.

As a side note, this study doesn't prove that evolution is the source of all biodiversity on the planet. It does, however, support adaptation by natural selection, which is the cornerstone of modern evolutionary theory.
So the article supports the theory that genes randomly mutated for some unknown reason.

Honestly, when you really get down to the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory .. it's just smoke and mirrors ... especially when the theory's cornerstone is an unexplained phenomenon that occurs in nature.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:31 PM   #68
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by furo View Post
Most of it is, yes, and that's using the definition of "fact" that scientists use. Were you running around 3.6 billion years ago taking measurements and observing the beginning of the Earth?
We can see how old the Earth is.. using many observational methods. I wasn't awake to see it rain last night.. but this morning when it was wet everywhere and the air smelled of ozone, I was able to deduct, through the power of reason and observation, that it had, in fact, rained.

The best part of this argument from you.. is that silly conservapedia link you provided above is almost entirely focused on the fact that the fossil records don't match up with evolution (which was already addressed earlier in this thread by someone else, so I won't reiterate.. you can scroll up and read it) If the planet was only a few thousand years old.. there wouldn't be nearly as many fossil records as there are.. unless species normally show up and dissappear in a couple of minutes.. because that's how long some of them would be around if you try and compress the life of the earth into 6000 years. Why argue about fossils if you don't think they are accurate anyway? Your link upholds this part of my argument.. thanks!





Originally Posted by furo
Fundamental error of yours: confusing adaptation with evolution.

Read up on the subjects, Gurgle. Come back when you have a clue.

Hell, I will even make it easy on you. You can look at an evolutionist's perspective to see why you don't even understand evolution from the scientific standpoint, gurgle:

evolution explained



Note the polar bear in the picture saying "what I need is a good fur coat."

Notice that is NOT how evolution works .. species don't "evolve" to overcome the environmental hazards or fight off diseases.

That's the fundamental error of yours here: confusing adaptation with evolution.

Adaptation has been proven ... while the theory of evolution has not.
Adaptation is one of the mechanisms that comprise evolution.. you are admitting you accept that part of evolution is, therefore, proven.

Adaptation IS a species changing to overcome it's enviornment.. and it DOES happen.. you just said so yourself.

The other mechanisms are genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, natural selection, speciation. These tend to flush out how we think things change.. some of them are completely random.. some of them aren't. Look them up.. read about them.. learn!
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:42 PM   #69
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Also, I'm curious Furo.. what do YOU believe? Since you so vehemently disbelieve evolution.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:45 PM   #70
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Furo
NOWHERE in there do you see them proving a causal link between the mutation and natural selection.

Hell, they even admit it in the article: "It is not yet clear whether the suppressor gene emerged from a chance mutation from within the local population, or if it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation had already been established."

For every example of some random "chance mutation" occuring in nature that saves a species from extinction, I'm sure there are countless, if not thousands, of examples where a species dies off from a similar bacterial infection or any number of other causes that "evolution" couldn't overcome.
I think you may be confused about what a mutation is. This is a random alteration in a creature's DNA. Mutation is not adaptation or evolution, it is simply a fact of life. The line you have quoted does not indicate ambiguity over whether adaptation occured. It indicates ambiguity over whether adaptation occured because a mutated allele became more common or because an existing allele, introduced from another population, became more common. In either case, it became more common, meaning adaptation occured.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:52 PM   #71
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
We can see how old the Earth is.. using many observational methods.
No we can't. Tell me how old the Earth is. Exactly. Not an estimate. Not a hypothesis. Exactly.

Can you do that? Can any scientist?

Originally Posted by Gurgle
I wasn't awake to see it rain last night.. but this morning when it was wet everywhere and the air smelled of ozone, I was able to deduct, through the power of reason and observation, that it had, in fact, rained.
Rained for how long? How much rain? You probably wouldn't be able to tell me right? Unless .. of course ... you measured. Or observed the time that it started raining and the time that it stopped.

Originally Posted by Gurgle
The best part of this argument from you.. is that silly conservapedia link you provided above is almost entirely focused on the fact that the fossil records don't match up with evolution (which was already addressed earlier in this thread by someone else, so I won't reiterate.. you can scroll up and read it) If the planet was only a few thousand years old.. there wouldn't be nearly as many fossil records as there are.. unless species normally show up and dissappear in a couple of minutes.. because that's how long some of them would be around if you try and compress the life of the earth into 6000 years. Why argue about fossils if you don't think they are accurate anyway? Your link upholds this part of my argument.. thanks!
And you completely ignored just about everything else in that "silly article" ... go figure.




Originally Posted by Gurgle
Adaptation is one of the mechanisms that comprise evolution.. you are admitting you accept that part of evolution is, therefore, proven.
Absolutely. Adaptation is a fact.

Originally Posted by Gurgle
Adaptation IS a species changing to overcome it's enviornment.. and it DOES happen.. you just said so yourself.
And you didn't. You're just trying to cover up the mistake you made in assuming that adaptation and evolution are the same thing.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 03:55 PM   #72
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
Also, I'm curious Furo.. what do YOU believe? Since you so vehemently disbelieve evolution.
I really haven't done enough on my own to come to a definitive conclusion tbh. It really boils down to having a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis or not. And I'm not educated to the point where I've asked the appropriate people the right questions to make my decision yet.

But I know for sure that I don't buy into evolutional theory.. especially the macro-view that man came from ape (or whatever species they've changed it to these days).
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:03 PM   #73
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Furo
So the article supports the theory that genes randomly mutated for some unknown reason.
It's not unknown. Just because something happens randomly doesn't mean we don't understand the mechanism for its occurance. The chemical and physical causes of mutation are generally understood very well. As I stated in my last post, you seem to misunderstand the function of mutation. The mutation just leads to genetic diversity. It is adaptation through natural selection, not mutation, which selects those creatures that have a genetic advantage. It's not like evolutionary biologists believe the butterflies might have all mutated. Mutations are rare, random, and generally harmful. On rare occaisions, they are beneficial.

The only thing that sentence in the article indicates is that they don't know if the creature or creatures which ended up spreading their genetic traits throughout the population (because he or they were much more likely to survive) originally developed their advantage because of a chance mutation or because they were introduced from another population. One or a small number of creatures were different. They just can't be sure why. What they do know, (or at least the conclusion that the facts support) is that this small number of creatures ended up spreading their genetic traits throughout the population through the mechanism of natural selection.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:07 PM   #74
Gurglespit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,707
Send a message via Yahoo to Gurglespit
Originally Posted by furo View Post
No we can't. Tell me how old the Earth is. Exactly. Not an estimate. Not a hypothesis. Exactly.

Can you do that? Can any scientist?



Rained for how long? How much rain? You probably wouldn't be able to tell me right? Unless .. of course ... you measured. Or observed the time that it started raining and the time that it stopped.
No, it happened long enough ago, and you are right.. we had nobody there to make records.. so nobody is sure of the EXACT time the Earth has been here. But with the HUGE amount of evidence we have.. we can approximate with a margin of error of about 1% (by what we figure.. with current information)

As for the rain.. sure.. I can figure out the approximate amount of rain by looking anywhere that water accumulated.. maybe an empty pot outside that I knew was dry previously.. and measure how much water is still in it... that would give me a rough approximation of how much it rained. If I knew the rate of absorbtion for the local ground composition, I could take a soil sample and measure the amount of moisture it absorbed to find out how long it rained for..



Originally Posted by Furo
And you completely ignored just about everything else in that "silly article" ... go figure.
No, I didn't ignore it, I read the whole thing and that was just one of the many silly things that jumped out at me. I could spend a week going over the contradictions in that thing.. but I won't waste my time.






Originally Posted by Furo
Absolutely. Adaptation is a fact.



And you didn't. You're just trying to cover up the mistake you made in assuming that adaptation and evolution are the same thing.
Evolution is inclusinve of adaptation. Adaptation is part of, and one of the means by which things, evolve. It isn't the only way.. but it's one way. I never claimed that it was the only way.
__________________
___________________________________________
This space for rent!
Gurglespit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:21 PM   #75
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Gurglespit View Post
No, it happened long enough ago, and you are right.. we had nobody there to make records.. so nobody is sure of the EXACT time the Earth has been here. But with the HUGE amount of evidence we have.. we can approximate with a margin of error of about 1% (by what we figure.. with current information)
Huge amount of evidence that can't tell us exactly how old the Earth is. And even within the scientific community there are differences in their estimates.

And let's get that very clear: they are ESTIMATES.

Not facts.

And where are you getting this 1% margin of error from? Source please? And when you say 1% ... what does that refer to? Because a 1% error when talking about 3.6 billion years is pretty fucking considerable.



Originally Posted by Gurgle
As for the rain.. sure.. I can figure out the approximate amount of rain by looking anywhere that water accumulated.. maybe an empty pot outside that I knew was dry previously.. and measure how much water is still in it... that would give me a rough approximation of how much it rained. If I knew the rate of absorbtion for the local ground composition, I could take a soil sample and measure the amount of moisture it absorbed to find out how long it rained for..
So thanks for proving my point: that you are using measurements and direct observation ... which can be done to get an exact figure ... which becomes scientific "fact" if and only if your measures are supported by other measures and the observations.




Originally Posted by Gurgle
Evolution is inclusinve of adaptation. Adaptation is part of, and one of the means by which things, evolve. It isn't the only way.. but it's one way. I never claimed that it was the only way.
So please explain then ... what your personal definition of evolution is and how it can possibly exclude the process of "adaptation."
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.