If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Panda's Thumb)   Recently scientists sequenced the coelacanth genome. Now the creationists have responded in the usual fact-free fashion. Here comes the real science   (pandasthumb.org) divider line 147
    More: Obvious, Discovery Institute, genetic sequence, genomes, Canadian National Exhibition, vertebrates, Answers in Genesis, Darwinian, Earth Science  
•       •       •

6403 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-28 10:06:11 AM
It's not polite to mock retarded people.  But in this case I think we can make an exception.
 
2013-04-28 10:17:56 AM
It should be a Felony for someone to use the words Creationism and fact in the same sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.
 
2013-04-28 10:40:17 AM

hardinparamedic: Einstazgruppen


Einsatzgruppen is the proper spelling there, Einstein
 
2013-04-28 10:49:16 AM
For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.
 
2013-04-28 10:53:41 AM
It's the usual "you don't have perfect evidence so it's not true" argument (found right here in my perfect Bible).
 
2013-04-28 10:57:08 AM

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


Well those genes are yer basic patriotic, gun totin', white, tea party, 'murrican genes.
 
2013-04-28 11:03:38 AM

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.
 
2013-04-28 11:04:54 AM

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


It refers to when a particular gene continues to exist in different species, e.g. the genes just found in coelacanth being present in humans, despite massive evolutionary 'distance'.
 
2013-04-28 11:05:12 AM

pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.


I think I kinda get that. Thanks!
 
2013-04-28 11:06:19 AM

hardinparamedic: sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.


Do they have a spelling division?
 
2013-04-28 11:13:19 AM

SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!


no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations
 
2013-04-28 11:14:11 AM
Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.
 
2013-04-28 11:14:30 AM

hardinparamedic: It should be a Felony for someone to use the words Creationism and fact in the same sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.


"Creation science" is the one that gets me.
 
2013-04-28 11:16:05 AM

Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.


Just wait.
 
2013-04-28 11:17:55 AM
You know I haven't seen everyone's favorite quote miner in a while, I'm wondering if he had a crisis of faith.  Anyway to keep up with creationist nonsense I'll post an out of context quote.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

-Charles Darwin


I'm sorry that was the wrong quote, let me try that again.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree

-Charles Darwin


There, did my quote mining correctly.
 
2013-04-28 11:19:13 AM

Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.


they're all in church right now
 
2013-04-28 11:20:54 AM

Gergesa: You know I haven't seen everyone's favorite quote miner in a while, I'm wondering if he had a crisis of faith.  Anyway to keep up with creationist nonsense I'll post an out of context quote.


I think the rumor is that he was politely asked to knock it the fark off because he was click mining (if you remember, his posts were riddled with links to his own site).
 
2013-04-28 11:23:35 AM

hawcian: Gergesa: You know I haven't seen everyone's favorite quote miner in a while, I'm wondering if he had a crisis of faith.  Anyway to keep up with creationist nonsense I'll post an out of context quote.

I think the rumor is that he was politely asked to knock it the fark off because he was click mining (if you remember, his posts were riddled with links to his own site).


Fark mods told a troll to go away?  Unlikely.

/jk mods.
//Sort of.
///Don't ban me.
 
2013-04-28 11:25:22 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: hardinparamedic: sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.

Do they have a spelling division?


It's the spelling Sonderkommando
 
2013-04-28 11:25:34 AM
I'm almost considering making myself a Creation shill just for the derptertainment.
 
2013-04-28 11:26:27 AM
Maybe all the creationists got raptured.
 
2013-04-28 11:26:41 AM

Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.


We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.
 
2013-04-28 11:31:50 AM

Wolf_Blitzer: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.


That is just an alt of Elchip; he doesn't really count.  He is just doing it for laughs whereas B had an actual religious zeal behind it.
 
2013-04-28 11:34:06 AM

pivazena: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

they're all in church right now


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2013-04-28 11:34:42 AM

SpdrJay: Maybe all the creationists got raptured.


I think it is funny that all here smart folks are being dumbfounded by a calendar and a clock.
 
2013-04-28 11:42:20 AM

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


Conserved genes, or conserved sequences, are strings of DNA that are identical between different animals.  If two genes are identical, they'll both produce the same protein regardless of the animal the DNA came from.  They may not produce identical amounts of that protein, due to differences in non-conserved areas acting as repressors or promoters, but the protein produced will be the same.   The amount of conservation between two different organisms' whole genomes can be used to measure how "related" those two organisms are to each other, and allows you to examine where and how those organisms (or at least those DNA sequences) may have diverged from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence
 
2013-04-28 11:43:01 AM
notthisshiatagain.jpg
 
2013-04-28 11:44:09 AM

edmo: It's the usual "you don't have perfect evidence so it's not true" argument (found right here in my perfect Bible).


I love how (all) religion(s) handle science.  When it fits their narrative it is valid:  "Carbon dating puts Shroud of Turin at about 2000 years old".  When it contradicts their narrative it isn't:  "Carbon dating puts Shroud of Turin at about 1200 years old".  Also faith requires just that, faith.  When science requires filling in some of the blanks with educated guesses it's "you have no proof".
 
2013-04-28 11:44:13 AM

Majick Thise: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

Well those genes are yer basic patriotic, gun totin', white, tea party, 'murrican genes.


Oh, how I laughed at that!

/biologist
//entomologist, really
 
rpm
2013-04-28 11:48:40 AM

edmo: It's the usual "you don't have perfect evidence so it's not true" argument (found right here in my perfect Bible).


I know, right?
 
2013-04-28 11:51:58 AM
The story about the coelacanth genome would have been a lot more interesting and accessible if it hadn't been filtered through some goofy ID perspective.
 
2013-04-28 11:52:14 AM
Marcus Aurelius: It's not polite to mock retarded people.  But in this case I think we can make an exception.

Actually, to the contrary. Calling this guy "retarded" is actually insulting to those with mental deficiencies.
 
2013-04-28 11:52:47 AM
i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.
 
2013-04-28 11:58:36 AM

SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.


It's like when God makes a furnace in Feed the Beast, and then he needs to make an iron furnace which requires the furnace to make, and then he needs to make an electric furnace and needs the iron furnace, and then he needs to make an induction furnace and needs an electric furnace. The induction furnace and then iron furnace still both have the furnace in the crafting recipe. It's just easier to use a previous creation to make the next creation since it already has a lot of the stuff you need.

At least until a creeper comes along and blowssssssssssss....
 
2013-04-28 12:04:24 PM

utah dude: i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.


I've got a coupon that will knock that down to $45.
 
2013-04-28 12:11:09 PM
Is it too hard for Creationists to simply say "God let nature take its course"?
Seriously, trying to refute science just makes them look lie a Palin child..
 
2013-04-28 12:11:45 PM
like
 
2013-04-28 12:27:24 PM
And this is supposed to rock religion how again?
 
2013-04-28 12:28:37 PM

wxboy: utah dude: i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.

I've got a coupon that will knock that down to $45.


Yeah, but it comes out a little tarded at 45.
 
2013-04-28 12:33:20 PM

hardinparamedic: wxboy: utah dude: i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.

I've got a coupon that will knock that down to $45.

Yeah, but it comes out a little tarded at 45.


I loled.
 
2013-04-28 12:41:43 PM

Gergesa: Wolf_Blitzer: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.

That is just an alt of Elchip; he doesn't really count.  He is just doing it for laughs whereas B had an actual religious zeal behind it.


I know that's what a lot of people think and I know why, but I'm not convinced. Plus, does elchip even post anymore?
 
2013-04-28 12:49:01 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Gergesa: Wolf_Blitzer: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.

That is just an alt of Elchip; he doesn't really count.  He is just doing it for laughs whereas B had an actual religious zeal behind it.

I know that's what a lot of people think and I know why, but I'm not convinced. Plus, does elchip even post anymore?


Keeping in mind that I don't know Elchip and don't look specifically for his posts, I believe the last time I saw a post by him was in some republican abortion thread.
 
2013-04-28 01:01:54 PM

hardinparamedic: wxboy: utah dude: i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.

I've got a coupon that will knock that down to $45.

Yeah, but it comes out a little tarded at 45.


holy crap you didn't.
 
2013-04-28 01:02:41 PM

wxboy: utah dude: i'll be impressed when i can get 25x coverage of my diploid set for $50, as 46 contigs w/o repeatmasked transposable elements / retroposons.

I've got a coupon that will knock that down to $45.


kick down already. and don't use one'a them illumina jobs.
 
2013-04-28 01:21:37 PM

Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.


No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.
 
2013-04-28 01:35:59 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


is that tatsumaes summonus ?
 
2013-04-28 01:43:01 PM

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


It isn't. The evolution/creationism debate isn't about religion, as such.
 
2013-04-28 01:46:41 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


The evolution/creationism debate has nothing to do with faith vs atheism. The only people who say it does are intellectually dishonest trolls. You aren't an intellectually dishonest troll, are you? I certainly hope not.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 01:47:52 PM

Kurmudgeon: Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.


Vague outline? IT'S IN THE WRONG farkING ORDER. That's not vague, that's wrong

Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


We have evidence. You have what exactly?
 
2013-04-28 01:52:46 PM
Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.
 
2013-04-28 01:55:53 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.
 
2013-04-28 01:58:04 PM

Mad Tea Party: Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.


I think he's been gone for a year or two now. He'd been phoning it in for a couple years before that, he'd throw in one or two quotes that had nothing to do with the article and then leave.
 
2013-04-28 02:05:50 PM

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


It's not.  People don't do scientific research in order to "rock religion," they do it in order to find out how the world actually works.
If the facts of nature conflict with a person's unsupported beliefs, so much the worse for the beliefs, but that's not why we study those facts.
 
2013-04-28 02:07:42 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.



How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is?  How did "creation" happen?  By what mechanisms did creation occur?
 
2013-04-28 02:12:18 PM

Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.


Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.
 
2013-04-28 03:26:04 PM

rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?


Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.
Llike the evidence has changed and this is just one example. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-ma y-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite

"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.
 
2013-04-28 03:33:10 PM

Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.


There's a few, but the debate is now more lively on climatology threads.

hawcian: I think the rumor is that he was politely asked to knock it the fark off because he was click mining


Judging from the link in his profile, and the eviscerated contents of the thread, it looks like he was trying his schtick in a thread at best marginally related, and was politely but firmly discouraged from doing so.
 
2013-04-28 03:38:54 PM

Mad Tea Party: Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.


It's okay, we have Quantum Apostrophe now.

Find him in every space thread.  You'll see.


/plate of 3D-printed shrimp
 
2013-04-28 03:41:23 PM
jso2897:
Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.

Exactly, and well put.
 
2013-04-28 03:43:04 PM

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.
Llike the evidence has changed and this is just one example. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-ma y-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite

"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.




So, god of the gaps argument? That's the best you can muster? You sir, are no Bevets!
 
2013-04-28 03:43:09 PM
Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.



So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?
 
2013-04-28 03:45:57 PM
Mister Peejay:
/plate of 3D-printed shrimp

Repo Man:

Miller was right!
 
2013-04-28 03:46:44 PM

FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?




Well, he's not going to defend young Earth creationists, because those people are clearly crazy.
 
2013-04-28 03:55:15 PM

jso2897: Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.

Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.


I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.  I turned his point around using science (statistical mathematics in this case) to (hopefully) make him sit down and stfu while adults are talking.  I never claimed that Evolution even attempts to explain the origin of life, and I'm aware it only deals with how that life changed over time after it came into existence.  I'll even help to explain the difference between a scientific theory (a verifiable but not 100% provable explanation for how/why something occurs, supported by evidence gathered from a variety of experimental observations) and a hypothesis (the expected outcome of an experiment defined before that experiment begins, which may or may not be verified by the observations that experiment produces, more akin to the layman's definition of theory as a guess).
 
2013-04-28 03:58:58 PM
RangerTaylor wrote:
"I'm almost considering making myself a Creation shill just for the derptertainment."

If you're going to do that, I've got a well-preserved brain you can have. It's from someone named Abby. Yes, it says "Abby Normal" right here on the label.

/slash
 
2013-04-28 04:00:52 PM

Kurmudgeon: This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?


The slightly more dignified version of "I TROLL U LOL."
 
rpm
2013-04-28 04:02:08 PM

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.


Let's see...
Virtual particles
Sum total of energy of the universe is 0
conservation of dna sequences
prediction and finding of intermediate forms

Evidence changing means hypothesis change. Welcome to science.
Evidence has changed, your book hasn't. Your god is dead.
 
2013-04-28 04:06:41 PM

OneFretAway: The story about the coelacanth genome would have been a lot more interesting and accessible if it hadn't been filtered through some goofy ID perspective.


Here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/science/coelacanth-dna-may-tell-how - fish-learned-to-walk.html?_r=1&
 
2013-04-28 04:06:51 PM

Kurmudgeon: at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


Just curious, which account of Creation do you have faith in? Genesis 1:1, or Genesis 2:4?
 
2013-04-28 04:07:20 PM

FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?


The "real" version of creationism that many creationists believe is that God did it.  We don't know how, we don't know when, and we don't know how long it took.  Why not?  Because we're not God.  As for those who try to "prove" that creation happened or that evolution didn't, they're missing the point, which is that faith requires the belief in something despite the absence of evidence.  If we can prove that God created the universe, we wouldn't need faith anymore.  I used to believe in things like irreducible complexity and whatnot, but I was 15 and didn't know any better.  Science and religion aren't incompatible until you start ignoring science to "prove" religion or you try to use science to disprove the existence of God which, given that He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, is pretty much impossible.

I think the United Methodist Church doctrine puts it pretty well:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."
 
2013-04-28 04:12:38 PM
God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.
 
2013-04-28 04:24:28 PM

rugman11: FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?

The "real" version of creationism that many creationists believe is that God did it.  We don't know how, we don't know when, and we don't know how long it took.  Why not?  Because we're not God.  As for those who try to "prove" that creation happened or that evolution didn't, they're missing the point, which is that faith requires the belief in something despite the absence of evidence.  If we can prove that God created the universe, we wouldn't need faith anymore.  I used to believe in things like irreducible complexity and whatnot, but I was 15 and didn't know any better.  Science and religion aren't incompatible until you start ignoring science to "prove" religion or you try to use science to disprove the existence of God which, given that He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, is pretty much impossible.

I think the United Methodist Church doctrine puts it pretty well:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geolog ...



That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to.  You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.
 
2013-04-28 04:38:53 PM

FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.


It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.
 
2013-04-28 04:43:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.




To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.
 
2013-04-28 04:57:15 PM

Repo Man: Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.

To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.


Every religion and sect of religion thinks they're the only ones who are right and everyone else has been lied to by that religion's resident evil being. It really is amusing and sad that they don't realize their own hypocrisy when they declare that only their brand of omnipotent deity(ies) is/are the only real ones and all others are fake and make-believe.

Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.
 
2013-04-28 05:04:19 PM

Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.


Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.
 
2013-04-28 05:08:41 PM

pivazena: Hox genes are an example of this. They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

because god made them whole and perfect 6000 years ago.

FTFY.
 
2013-04-28 05:10:02 PM

Repo Man: Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.

To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.


It's all sectarian bullshiat anyway, seems to me. I'm not a Christian, but i see nothing in Christ's teachings that require a rejection of evolution or any other scientific concept, and the vast majority of Christians I've known agree with me on that. It's willful ignorance, as far as I can tell.
 
2013-04-28 05:11:45 PM

rugman11: FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.

It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.



I think it might be more clear to refer to your group as "science-accepting religious people" or "science-accepting theists" (or replace "theist" with your particular denomination if you want to be specific).  The word "creationist" has come to be associated in the public consciousness with "people who deny the reality of biological evolution."   If you refer to yourself as a "creationist," people are likely to assume that you reject the theory of evolution.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "creationism" itself is extremely heavily loaded with connotations or biblical literalism, young-earth beliefs, "ex novo" fiat creation, and fixity of species.  It seems to me that you'll have a hard time "taking it back."

(I'm aware that people who share your beliefs are a substantial group.  My comments are solely directed at whether it is accurate to use the term "creationism" for those beliefs.)
 
2013-04-28 05:17:51 PM

jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.


I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.
 
2013-04-28 05:20:53 PM

FloydA: rugman11: FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.

It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.


I think it might be more clear to refer to your group as "science-accepting religious people" or "science-accepting theists" (or replace "theist" with your particular denomination if you want to be specific).  The word "creationist" has come to be associated in the public consciousness with "people who deny the reality of biological evolution."   If you refer to yourself as a "creationist," people are likely to assume that you reject the theory of evolution.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "creationism" itself is extremely heavily loaded with connotations or biblical literalism, young-earth beliefs, "ex novo" fiat creation, and fixity of species.  It seems to me that you'll have a hard time "taking it back."

(I'm aware that people who share your beliefs are a substantial group.  My comments are solely directed at whether it is accurate to use the term "creationism" for those beliefs.)


This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".
 
2013-04-28 05:29:28 PM

Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.


Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.
 
2013-04-28 05:29:31 PM
Were you there?
 
2013-04-28 05:30:39 PM

Archae hippy: Were you there?


Yes. But, unlike you, I didn't take any of the brown acid.
 
2013-04-28 05:32:26 PM

jso2897: ambiogenesis


Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).
 
2013-04-28 05:33:03 PM

Archae hippy: Were you there?


Yes.  Get off my lawn.
 
2013-04-28 05:50:43 PM

FloydA: jso2897: ambiogenesis

Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).


Are you trying to correct my speeling?
 
2013-04-28 05:55:01 PM

jso2897: FloydA: jso2897: ambiogenesis

Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).

Are you trying to correct my speeling?



Not exactly, I'm trying to correct your Latin grammar.

The prefix "a-" means "without," while the prefix "ambi-" means "either" or "both."  "Ambiogenesis" would mean "the origin of life from either of two sources," which in this context, would just make things even more confusing!  :-)
 
2013-04-28 06:03:43 PM

rugman11: Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.


Incidentally, the Gallup form of the question appears to tend to lump OEC in with YEC, and ID in with Theistic Evolution (based on comparison of the more specific 2002 Cleveland Plain Dealer poll in Ohio to contemporary Gallup numbers). The full breakdown appears to look something like:

Young-Earth Creationist: 30%
Old-Earth Creationist: 15%
Intelligent Design: 15%
Theistic Evolution: 25%
Atheist Evolution: 15%

Which doesn't do much to undermine your point, generally. However, the position you're at sounds more in the neighborhood of what's usually termed "Theistic Evolution". (It also sounds like the position is continuing to metamorphose over time.)

jso2897: Are you trying to correct my speeling?


FloydA has other futile hobbies, too, like tilting at windmills.
 
2013-04-28 06:08:26 PM
abb3w:

FloydA has other futile hobbies, too, like tilting at windmills.

To dream ... the impossible dream ...
To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
To bear ... with unbearable sorrow ...
To run ... where the brave dare not go ...
 
2013-04-28 06:09:43 PM

Spaz-master: Is it too hard for Creationists to simply say "God let nature take its course"?
Seriously, trying to refute science just makes them look lie a Palin child..


What kind of idiot God hand crafts every aspect of the universe, when it is easier just to Big Bang it and come back 15 billion years later. Work smarter not harder.

Creationists obviously believe God is as stupid as they are.
 
2013-04-28 06:12:47 PM

jso2897: Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.

Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.


I don't see how pointing out how his argument is stupid using a statistical example is buying into it, or how invalidating something is lending it legitimacy, unless you think I'm deliberately feeding a martyr complex or something.
 
2013-04-28 06:24:10 PM

Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.


The other thing is that life evolving and becoming intelligent is pure chance. Evolution automatically perfects traits that have a survival benefit, so once a wing like structure is created by random mutation, natural selection makes that structure more and more aerodynamic over time, so it is not like an entire wing just pops out of the genetic code because of a one and a billion mutation.

Also, you have things like life starting that are HEAVILY favored by physics and chemistry. Fusion reactions in stars create certain elements like carbon and oxygen. Those elements get supernova'd into nebulas that form new stars and planets, so those planetary atmospheres have those elements in high abundance. You run lightning through those elements, you get the building blocks of life. Put those building blocks in water, and things like phospholipid chains tend to create bubbles similar to cell membranes because they are repelled by water and attracted to one another. There's a ton of evidence that the physics and chemistry heavily favors the formation of life in the right circumstances, which seriously UPS the chances of it happening.
 
2013-04-28 06:25:30 PM
Life forming and evolving isn't pure chance, I mean.
 
2013-04-28 07:07:56 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


Time, energy, and chemicals. Do I need faith to understand how gravity will pull clouds of hydrogen into stars? Do I need faith to understand how stars fuse hydrogen into helium? Or helium into heavier elements? Do I need faith to understand how exploding super-novae fuse elements heavier than iron in their shock waves? DO I need faith to understand how these clouds of heavier elements come together under the influence of gravity to form planets? Do I need faith to understand that, under the right conditions, chemicals can come together to form primitive forms of life? Do i need faith to understand how competition for resources will cause these primitive forms of life to become more complex and better able to survive?

Tell, me, oh great and wise one, where do I need faith?

And what will you say if we find independently formed life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Did your god place them there to be trapped forever in their ice-locked oceans, unable to see the glory of His creation? Or did they "just happen"?
 
2013-04-28 07:12:01 PM

Kurmudgeon: Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.
 
2013-04-28 07:12:44 PM

hardinparamedic: It should be a Felony for someone to use the words Creationism and fact in the same sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.


I agree, then we can also use that precedent to apply that logic to the phrase "my little poney" and "as an adult".
 
2013-04-28 07:16:17 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.


Over 32,000 different sects. That are known about.
 
2013-04-28 07:22:40 PM

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


In fairness, ID isn't really "religion", it's a specific subset of Christianity that even most of the people "believing" in it only "believe" by virtue of not really caring and going with whatever their pastor says.  The people that actively defend it are a special breed of idiot even by Christian standards.  A very annoying, destructive breed, but kicking them in the balls will still only bring them down, it won't drop the entirety of Christianity and Islam (which has similar factional issues) or anything.

We're not expecting it to, we're just expecting to convince the rest of the religious people to tell these specific idiots to fark off.  Eventually.
 
2013-04-28 07:43:38 PM

Kurmudgeon: at least creationists admit they are relying on faith


Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat".
 
rpm
2013-04-28 08:48:09 PM

jso2897: This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".


Yeah, it does. Quantum Mechanics has been shown to have no hidden variables. There's no place for god to work. The only god that is even close to possible is the deist one, and he kicked it off and got completely out of the way and is no longer in the universe at all.
 
2013-04-28 09:10:30 PM

rpm: jso2897: This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".

Yeah, it does. Quantum Mechanics has been shown to have no hidden variables. There's no place for god to work. The only god that is even close to possible is the deist one, and he kicked it off and got completely out of the way and is no longer in the universe at all.


No, it doesn't. The nature and structure of the universe is a factual issue. the existence or non-existence of anything that can be called "God" is a metaphysical one. What you have done is chosen to define "God" as you yourself wish to - much like a Southern Baptist preacher.
As an atheist, i can't do that - so i can't address that metaphysical issue. Either way, it's irrelevant to the mechanics of the universe.
I have no reference for the "God" concept, so it doesn't exist., for me. But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.
 
2013-04-28 09:16:57 PM

Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.

Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.

I don't see how pointing out how his argument is stupid using a statistical example is buying into it, or how invalidating something is lending it legitimacy, unless you think I'm deliberately feeding a martyr complex or something.


I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".
 
2013-04-28 09:52:34 PM

Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.


You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?
 
2013-04-28 09:57:01 PM
Remember kids, creationism... er, we mean 'intelligent design' is so well founded that most of its advocates backed out and wouldn't defend it in court and the one that would had to admit that Tarot Cards were valid science under his definition of science.
 
2013-04-28 10:05:57 PM

jso2897: I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".


Yes, he tried to re-frame the argument, and I at least attempted to shut him down before he could get rolling.  Ever since then you've been attacking my decision to say something.  You haven't attempted to refute anything I stated except for my opinion that people like him should be opposed, not appeased or ignored.  I'm baffled as to why you would give half a shiat about how I choose to occupy my time.  I knew going in that I was probably biting on a troll, but it's not like I have anything better to do.
 
2013-04-28 10:15:03 PM

Kurmudgeon: Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.

You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?


"They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.
The issue of the origin of species on our planet is a physical question, and only one scientific theory has ever been thunk up to address it.
There are, on the other hand, potentially, a million metaphysical explanations - but that's a different subject. Why even discuss the issue if it bores you that much? if you want to talk metaphysics, talk metaphysics in a metaphysics thread someplace. You're like a guy who sits down at a table where everybody is talking about cars and starts talking about can openers. It's actually kind of rude. i believe they call it "derailing", or, more pejoratively, "threadshiatting".
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:21:24 PM

jso2897: But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.


Nope. All someone has to do is provide evidence. That's not a religion.

Religions have had millenia to present evidence. None have. Null hypothesis still holds.
 
2013-04-28 10:23:07 PM

Arumat: jso2897: I thought we were talking about evolution - not about the existence/non-existence of a metaphysical concept. He wishes to re-frame the argument the metaphysical, because he can't lose that argument. It's circular, and infinite.
And just as an aside - one doesn't need to be religious to have a "martyr complex".

Yes, he tried to re-frame the argument, and I at least attempted to shut him down before he could get rolling.  Ever since then you've been attacking my decision to say something.  You haven't attempted to refute anything I stated except for my opinion that people like him should be opposed, not appeased or ignored.  I'm baffled as to why you would give half a shiat about how I choose to occupy my time.  I knew going in that I was probably biting on a troll, but it's not like I have anything better to do.


Neither do I. We're just talking here, and if I thought you were going to get all personally butthurt about it, I never would have mentioned it, Francis. If that's your idea of someone "attacking" you, you are one sensitive little snowflake.
Lighten up - you'll get over it.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:23:48 PM

jso2897: "They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.


Does god affect the universe Yes / No?

If no, it's metaphysical. If yes, it's physical and is answerable to science. If god doesn't have any physical effects, how can religions claim to know he exists? Thought processes are physical, hence revelation is physical. Creation of the universe is physical.
 
2013-04-28 10:29:09 PM

rpm: jso2897: But I don't confuse my metaphysical position with "reality". To say "God doesn't exist" you must believe in "God" - I don't, so I can't say that. Atheism isn't my religion - but it appears to be yours.

Nope. All someone has to do is provide evidence. That's not a religion.

Religions have had millenia to present evidence. None have. Null hypothesis still holds.


Evidence of what? The existence or non-existence of some concept that can be called "God"? Metaphysics don't involve "evidence". It's like asking me to provide "evidence" that a woman is beautiful, or a joke is funny. That's why the religious folk always try to move the discussion into that venue - they can't lose, and you can't win.
"Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.
 
2013-04-28 10:31:00 PM

rpm: jso2897: "They" don't. Only you do. And you might as well call it an "artichoke", for all the difference it makes in the context of this discussion. Science is still limited to answering physical questions - it neither responds to no fails to respond to the metaphysical.

Does god affect the universe Yes / No?

If no, it's metaphysical. If yes, it's physical and is answerable to science. If god doesn't have any physical effects, how can religions claim to know he exists? Thought processes are physical, hence revelation is physical. Creation of the universe is physical.


If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:32:07 PM

jso2897: "Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.


God is an attempt at physical explanation. It is not metaphysical, it has observable effects, otherwise it would never have been posited. Null Hypothesis holds.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 10:33:16 PM

jso2897: If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.


No, it's not. You're making a physical claim about the system. You have two different origins, with differing properties.
 
2013-04-28 10:43:24 PM
I got about 4 words in and happened to skim ahead....then I realized how boring whatever writer dood is talking bout  is...,.

who are the bigger dorks, the the anthropologists or the geneticists...maybe the geologists...My degree's in Zoology area, so i know I'm pretty farking cool.
Do proctologist's, and urologists and such go into those fields because of interest in them?

GG allen should have been proctologist.
 
2013-04-28 10:52:25 PM

rpm: jso2897: "Null hypothesis"  is all well and good when it comes to responding to fallacious factual arguments - it's useless in a metaphysical argument.

God is an attempt at physical explanation. It is not metaphysical, it has observable effects, otherwise it would never have been posited. Null Hypothesis holds.


rpm: jso2897: If in fact, the universe WAS "created" - but WHETHER it was "created" is a metaphysical question.

No, it's not. You're making a physical claim about the system. You have two different origins, with differing properties.


You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view - and you are boring me, much in the same way that a fundamentalist religious person bores me. Your compulsive need for certitude in an uncertain reality, and the hugeness of your need to be "right" are symptomatic of the same existential insecurity that makes the fundamentalist a bore.
For all that you are presenting me with any intellectual interest, or content, you might as well be quoting the bible at me.
Mind you, it is not that I don't empathize with the inability to address the metaphysical - I am , myself unable to do so, and utterly lack the capacity for faith, or any analogue thereof.
I would be a fool to address the existence/non-existence of the abstract concept of "creation" or a "creator" - but at least I'm aware of it, and don't try to catalogue all of reality like it was my stamp collection or some shiat.
 
2013-04-28 10:56:37 PM

almejita: I got about 4 words in and happened to skim ahead....then I realized how boring whatever writer dood is talking bout  is...,.

who are the bigger dorks, the the anthropologists or the geneticists...maybe the geologists...My degree's in Zoology area, so i know I'm pretty farking cool.
Do proctologist's, and urologists and such go into those fields because of interest in them?

GG allen should have been proctologist.


A poor writer can make anything dull.
 
2013-04-28 11:04:48 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.
 
2013-04-28 11:07:33 PM
Woops - I meant It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand THAT "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
 
rpm
2013-04-28 11:16:51 PM

jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view


Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?
 
2013-04-28 11:43:45 PM

rpm: jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view

Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?


I don't.
 
2013-04-29 12:58:31 AM

Kurmudgeon: Ed Grubermann: Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.

You move the goalposts quite well.

".Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat"."
Really? Then why do they call it, oh my, can you believe it, a "faith"?


What goalposts? Science hasn't said "we know how the universe came yo be" in a very long time. Try again, liar.
 
2013-04-29 01:03:20 AM

jso2897: It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.


The problem is that "metaphysics" is complete bullshiat. Only, you're not really supposed to say that out loud.
 
2013-04-29 01:04:14 AM

Wolf_Blitzer: Repo Man: Has Fark scared off all of the creationists? Since Bevets has gone, I never see anyone defending creationism here. I guess I'll have to go and read YouTube comments to get my fix of creationist derp.

We still have the resident GED in Law, but he usually just makes semantic arguments and ignores anything of substance.


And then there's Wason Selection Failer, but I haven't seen him in a while either (thank Stendarr)

.

Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.


Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from?  I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah.  How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?
 
2013-04-29 01:04:16 AM

jso2897: rpm: jso2897: You are repeating yourself, without offering any support for your point of view

Ok, let's put this in other terms then.

How do you observe the metaphysical? If it's observable, how is it metaphysical? If it's not observable, how do you make claims about it?

I don't.


Like I said, it's complete bullshiat. There's nothing to "observe".
 
2013-04-29 02:18:41 AM

Ed Grubermann: jso2897: It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise bright people seem to understand why "creation scientists" are idiots, without understanding WHY they are idiots.
They are idiots because they try to bring metaphysics into the realm of science, and pass it off a science. It is extremely disheartening to see seemingly smart people respond by attempting to bring science into the realm of metaphysics. It's also a problem because it gives metaphysically inspired pseudoscientists reason to believe that they are right, and provides them with superficially convincing arguments to that effect.
After all - if you grant their basic premise, they can always quibble about the details.

The problem is that "metaphysics" is complete bullshiat. Only, you're not really supposed to say that out loud.


It's entirely necessary to say it, out loud, over and over again, because when you stop saying it out loud, the fools whispering in the corners start convincing the easily led otherwise.
 
2013-04-29 03:48:40 AM

friday13: Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from? I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah. How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?


Here you go.
 
2013-04-29 05:00:45 AM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


So, did God create Himself, or happen all on His own?
 
2013-04-29 05:55:35 AM
I'd just like to add that I'm an atheist and damn proud of it.
 
2013-04-29 06:55:01 AM

s2s2s2: SpdrJay: Maybe all the creationists got raptured.

I think it is funny that all here smart folks are being dumbfounded by a calendar and a clock.


My vcr has a calander, too!?!?! Oh, ffs..... Be back in a month
 
2013-04-29 08:46:22 AM

AdrienVeidt: So, did God create Himself, or happen all on His own?


Exerytime he faps, his spank sock creates a new galaxy.
 
2013-04-29 09:04:23 AM

pivazena: SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!

no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations


*struggles to wrap mind around new theory*

So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?
....
Or do we have basic genes we share with most animals that lay the "ground work" for sight, and then the actual make up of the eye is varied enough that they don't count as conserved genes?

/Sorry, the above is probably completely scientifically illiterate, but any light you can shed would be appreciated.
//Holy crap I need to read a book more often.
 
2013-04-29 09:22:12 AM
"Here we go back, this is the moment
Tonight is the night, we'll swim till it's over
So we put our fins up like a coelacanth hold-up
Like a coelacanth hold-up"
    --  Mackerelmore

Coelacanth: I'd just like to add that I'm an atheist and damn proud of it.


Good on ya!
Wait-- Are you... Is your last name Green? Are you the world-famous Coelacanth Green?
 
2013-04-29 09:23:14 AM
So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee
 
2013-04-29 09:46:29 AM

Kurmudgeon:
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?


Jehova with his multitude of angels and his ability to summon complex physical phenomena into existence by simple voice command came about all on his own. At least I've never heard an adherent to any Abrahamic faith explain how he came to be.

/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

You don't have to be atheist to be a scientist or to have confidence in scientific results. Science is not in competition with religion and scientists are not like the religious clericy. They don't claim to hold absolute truth, they don't promote dogma, and they don't ask anyone to believe them without testing and evidence. There is no leap of faith in science.
Unlike religious dogma, scientific findings are constantly reexamined, research and discovery keep happening, and scientific theories are rarely put to work without proven and predictable results.
 
2013-04-29 10:12:43 AM

Ed Grubermann: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.

Over 32,000 different sects. That are known about.


I'd say there are as many Christian sects as there are Christians. No one has an identical viewpoint or belief to anyone else.
 
2013-04-29 10:59:59 AM

theorellior: friday13: Where the hell does this "Lillith" thing come from? I've never seen it in genesis, and the only time the word even appears in the OT is in Isiah. How the hell do people go from the destruction of Edom to Genesis, or rather an incident not mentioned in Genesis?

Here you go.


So (quick version) it was made up in medival times (and was made to look like some second century jew made it up), and now we treat it as theological fact, despite it being both made out of whole cloth and seems to be intended as satirical as a whole?  Wow, and I thought theology couldn't get any more farked...

/thanks, by the way.
 
2013-04-29 11:13:23 AM
jso2897:
The issue of the origin of species on our planet is a physical question, and only one scientific theory has ever been thunk up to address it.

Minor historical quibble:  There have actually been several scientific theories thought up to address the origin of species.  Only one of them has stood up to testing.

(This does not conflict with your main point, of course.)
 
2013-04-29 11:26:52 AM

Ed Grubermann: Tell, me, oh great and wise one, where do I need faith?


The notion that evidence has any pattern; taking the refutation leads to an alternative interpretation with equal internal validity.
Plus to take enough axioms to allow mathematical language expressing the notion of "pattern".

Dansker: There is no leap of faith in science.


As I noted, there's a couple; but most of the leaps are ones inherited from using mathematics as a language.

Ostman: So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?


Most of the ones they're talking about are even more basic -- the basic donut topology of digestive anatomy, the quadruped layout for vertebrates, and so on.
 
2013-04-29 12:14:37 PM

abb3w: Dansker: There is no leap of faith in science.

As I noted, there's a couple; but most of the leaps are ones inherited from using mathematics as a language.


Fair enough, but that's literally semantics.

And let me add a very, very late thanks for TF.
 
2013-04-29 12:26:02 PM

Ostman: pivazena: SurfaceTension: pivazena: SurfaceTension: For those smarter than I, what does it mean when they talk about conserved genes? I've never heard that term before.

these are genes whose sequence hasn't changed a lot across very divergent taxa.  (Because any mutation that did change it would be strongly selected against.) It implies that their function is very important and central to these organisms.  Hox genes are an example of this.  They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

I think I kinda get that. Thanks!

no prob!  The analogy isn't perfect, but think of a car.  Lots and lots of aspects of cars have changed as they've diversified over the past century, but the basic plan is the same-- 4 wheels, engine, axels. That's because the cars need to get from point a to point b, and these parts are vital. If there were genes to make these parts, they'd be the same for 100 years. Maybe some changes, bigger or smaller, two wheels instead of four, but the wheel is still round and rubber, you know? If a mutation came along and made oval wheels, that car wouldn't sell well and would be selected against. Other modifications like power windows or sunroofs or different colors or wood paneling are less central to the car, so they come and go with different car incarnations

*struggles to wrap mind around new theory*

So for example would whatever genes allow for sight be conserved, as most multi-celled organisms in the animal kingdom seem to have it to one degree or another and it seems like a terrible disadvantage to not have it? Or is that too specific?
....
Or do we have basic genes we share with most animals that lay the "ground work" for sight, and then the actual make up of the eye is varied enough that they don't count as conserved genes?

/Sorry, the above is probably completely scientifically illiterate, but any light you can shed would be appreciated.
//Holy crap I need to read a book more often.


Actually, eyes are not an example of conserved genes.  They are an example of convergent evolution.  Eyes are so useful, except in caves, that they have developed independently over and over on different branches of the biological tree .  Having live young is another example of something so useful it also keeps developing independently over and over.

An example of conserved genes would be the fish skeleton.  Change the layout a bit and the bones in the fins become arms and hands in humans.  Fish have ribs, pectoral and pelvic girdles, bones that form the spine and other parts of the skeleton.  Change the layout a bit and you have a frog, or a crocodile, or a bird, or a mouse, or a person.  Add a layer or two to the fish brain and you have a reptilian brain.  Add another layer or two and you have a human brain.  Bit of a simplification, but you get the idea.

Individual mutations, or changes in the DNA, are random.
Some changes don't affect the carrier one way or another or little enough it doesn't affect the carrier.  Think different blood types.  The proteins that form hemoglobin have slightly different amino acid sequences but all carry oxygen just the same.
Some changes affect the carrier in such a way that the carrier has fewer offspring survive and produce more offspring with the change.
Some changes affect the carrier in such a way that the carrier has more offspring survive and produce more offspring with the change.
Believe it or not, but some mutations don't change anything at all.  Each protein, start and stop is a "word" that is three base pairs long.  In some amino acids, there are up to four different "words" that code for the same amino acid.
And some, like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are actually good if they are paired with a normal gene and very, very bad when there are two "bad" genes.

Which mutations are good and which are bad is dependent, in part, on the environment the carrier is living in.
 
2013-04-29 12:28:57 PM

SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee


Hox, rhymes with box.  And they are the basic blueprint/scaffold genes.  They tell what goes where.  And when mutations crop up, that is when you get experimental fruit flies with legs growing from their eyes.  Another thing they control is what color patterns are found where.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:09 PM

Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.


Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!
 
2013-04-29 01:12:33 PM

FloydA: Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.

Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!


Thanks for the giggle.
 
2013-04-29 01:59:57 PM

Dansker: Fair enough, but that's literally semantics.


The inherited ones, yes; the faith that semantics is even abstractly possible, more or less.

As to the final leap, noting it and how small it seems it might allow for more effective disarming of the religious "NO U" argument. "Yes, here is the entire tiny iota of faith required to get from math to science; the only bit. Do you want to accept it and all the consequences, or see where you can get to if you stick with rejecting it?"

Dansker: And let me add a very, very late thanks for TF.


De nada.
 
2013-04-29 02:26:42 PM

FloydA: Timid Goddess: SoupJohnB: So what's all this about Hoax genes?

/read it that way

//need more coffee

Hox, rhymes with box.

Would point mutations in fruit flies
cause legs to sprout out from their eyes?
Come on, my friend it's not so awful-a
let's radiate some Drosophilia

I would not, could not
radiate them
for fear that I would
then mutate them
I would not zap them, it's too chancy
Please don't ask, Dr. Dobzhansky!


I've witnessed behavioral mutations in a human college student as a direct result of fruit flies.  This was when he returned to his dorm room after Spring Break.  Where the walls had been smeared with ripe banana pulp, and were thick with the little buggers.

/I swear that I had nothing to do with this childish prank

//well - ok. Let's just say I was not the victim
 
2013-04-29 08:42:55 PM

vudukungfu: Exerytime he faps, his spank sock creates a new galaxy.


That has to be one crusty jizz sock...
 
Displayed 147 of 147 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report