Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Slate)   A half-naked witch doctor is why creationism is still being taught in Louisiana schools. No, really   (slate.com) divider line 379
    More: Stupid, Education Act, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Bobby Jindal  
•       •       •

9012 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 08:54:42 PM  

PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?


Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."
 
2013-05-05 08:55:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.
 
2013-05-05 08:57:16 PM  

Epoch_Zero: SkinnyHead:
[i0.kym-cdn.com image 680x680]
/guys...


I know you mean well, but that's more annoying than a dozen troll posts.
 
2013-05-05 08:57:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?


You don't seem to understand: The people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is a methodology that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks (for 150 years). If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".
 
2013-05-05 08:58:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: Wolf_Blitzer: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Yes, if it's directed by an intelligent agency

How does one scientifically test for this? I have yet to see one devised that can prove the hypothesis.

More importantly, there's no way of disproving it, which means it isn't science.

One could also say that if those scientists who advocated Intelligent Design were working on ways of proving or disproving their theory, rather that only advocating it as "belief" with no interest in testing it, the theory might gain at least some kind of acceptance in the scientific community.


That still wouldn't work. For Creationism (which Intelligent Design was ruled in a court of law to be nothing more than a warmed-over renaming of) to even qualify as an hypothesis, it must be falsifiable, which means that there must be a conceivable and feasible experiment that could be performed that, if it returned or failed to return certain predicted results, would disprove it.

Since the basic premise of Creationism is that God (or some unnamed Creator) created everything, we would need to determine just what it is in things that show that they are in fact created. To do this, we need a "control group" to test against. This "control group" would need to consist of known non-created things, so that we can analyze them to determine just what the difference is, and thus be able to analyze anything in the future and declare with confidence, "this here thing was created, and that other thing over there was not created, and here's how we can tell the difference."

But since Creationism states that everything (except the Creator Him/Her/Itself) was created, there can be no such control group of non-created things! Unless and until, that is, the Creator deigns to show up in a scientific lab and allow Him/Her/Itself to be so analyzed.
 
2013-05-05 08:58:03 PM  

ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."


Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.
 
2013-05-05 09:01:16 PM  

skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?


Come on e you have been here awhile
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-05 09:04:42 PM  

spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?


Elizabeth Montgomery did nude movies?

i.imgur.com

/in the 60s,70s, please
 
2013-05-05 09:05:12 PM  

PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.


Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.
 
2013-05-05 09:06:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory. I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence


They haven't changed the theory. It's still the same theory: Over time, generations of life will change in adaptation to their environment. It was true when Darwin said it and it's true today. Just because we learned about DNA and the mechanisms of change (allele frequency, genes, etc.) does not alter the theory, it expands on its basic principle that "life changes over time". The only difference that new evidence has brought to us is HOW life changes.
 
2013-05-05 09:11:33 PM  
At this point, I am all for Zalgo coming so we can be rid of Skinnyhead.
 
2013-05-05 09:13:39 PM  

spongeboob: skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?

Come on e you have been here awhile
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 197x256]


I thought you were referring to a farkette. I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid
 
2013-05-05 09:15:50 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: Well then how can you falsify the theory of evolution, i.e., the theory that all life evolved from some ill-defined lower state to its current complexity by purely natural undirected processes?

You don't seem to understand: The people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is a methodology that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks (for 150 years). If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".


He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID.  To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution.  There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.

You'd have to prove the very material nature of the universe itself before he'll yield on a single point.
 
2013-05-05 09:16:44 PM  

skozlaw: Zeppelininthesky: They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

He knows damn well what he's talking about. He does this on purpose because he's dishonest, not because he doesn't know any better.


It's like talking to a chimp jerking itself off in a mirror.
 
2013-05-05 09:17:25 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: I was told that ID is not science because it is not falsifiable, so I asked how the theory of evolution is falsifiable, and I was told that if they were to find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that would falsify the theory. I said no, they would just change the theory to fit the evidence

They haven't changed the theory. It's still the same theory: Over time, generations of life will change in adaptation to their environment. It was true when Darwin said it and it's true today. Just because we learned about DNA and the mechanisms of change (allele frequency, genes, etc.) does not alter the theory, it expands on its basic principle that "life changes over time". The only difference that new evidence has brought to us is HOW life changes.


Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative. It's like the Big Bang. "You know, if the big bang really happened, there should be x amount of background radiation. Let's check." Boom! x amount of background radiation. Despite it happening 14 billion years ago, they were able to predict something about NOW that would help prove it, and the prediction was found to be true. Similar predictions can be made about evolution.
 
2013-05-05 09:18:42 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skozlaw: Zeppelininthesky: They are different. It also shows me that you really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

He knows damn well what he's talking about. He does this on purpose because he's dishonest, not because he doesn't know any better.

It's like talking to a chimp jerking itself off in a mirror.


Now I know what I'm goimg to do tomorrow.
 
2013-05-05 09:20:47 PM  

Antimatter: He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID. To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution. There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.


I'm well aware of it. It's a fallacy Creationists use constantly: That disproving A automatically proves B. It's the same Apologetics bullshiat going around in circles.
 
2013-05-05 09:23:53 PM  

PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.


Umm, sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're a nutter. So, you know, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. Go on back to believing in gibberish, it's a free country, but I'm pretty sure the witch doctor is wrapped tighter than you.
 
2013-05-05 09:24:15 PM  
Louisiana makes Texas look progressive.
 
2013-05-05 09:25:07 PM  

Ishkur: Antimatter: He's using the standard redirection counter to having to explain ID. To them, they win by default unless you can prove evolution. There is nothing you can say that will cause him to yield ground, because hes arguing for magic, and magic can and does explain everything.

I'm well aware of it. It's a fallacy Creationists use constantly: That disproving A automatically proves B. It's the same Apologetics bullshiat going around in circles.


Right, to them, magic is the default, so you have to disprove them, and they win by default if you don't.  They have lost the argument on so many points over the last few thousand years as more and more magical things were explained to be natural, that they cannot stand the idea of losing this one.
 
2013-05-05 09:25:40 PM  

vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.


Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?
 
2013-05-05 09:28:55 PM  

TheDarkSaintOfGin: ox45tallboy: jcooli09: Infinity370: [freethoughtblogs.com image 720x480]

That picture really pisses me off.  The teacher, principal, and parents of that child should be prosecuted for child abuse.

FYI, the parents weren't happy about it, and the father stated the child would not be attending the school the following year.

Link

Thank you for that.  I was hoping it was faked.  I have now lost all hope.

/last shred of faith in humanity=gone


www.sadmuffin.net
 
2013-05-05 09:29:08 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.

Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?


It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.
 
2013-05-05 09:30:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.


We turned the grey wolf into the farking chihuahua and he doesn't think that's evolution?
 
2013-05-05 09:32:14 PM  

skullkrusher: spongeboob: skullkrusher: spongeboob: Am I the only one who hoped it was Fark's favorite witch who was half naked?

who is Fark's favorite witch?

Come on e you have been here awhile
[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 197x256]

I thought you were referring to a farkette. I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid


Something we can agree on.


/I remember there being Fark headlines back in 2010 calling O'Donnell Fark's favorite witch but now I can't find any of them
 
2013-05-05 09:32:31 PM  

Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.


The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

So, if Randi were putting out a public-service stunt to tell people about evidence, well, that'd still be anti-ethical since he's pretending it's an experiment as hard as he can...but as it is? That's a hell of a lot of blue links on my side, and a guy who  can change the rules of his 'experiment' whenever he wants and has a million dollars at stake on the other.

I know which one I wouldn't submit as a paper.
 
2013-05-05 09:33:58 PM  
ghare:

Umm, sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're a nutter. So, you know, I am not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. Go on back to believing in gibberish, it's a free country, but I'm pretty sure the witch doctor is wrapped tighter than you.

Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.

I haven't been, but hey, what do I know, I just actually read the things...
 
2013-05-05 09:34:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?


Skinnyhead's version of God: intellectually on the same level as the guy who designed the Pinto.
 
2013-05-05 09:34:59 PM  

PsiChick: Erix: PsiChick: ghare: PsiChick: Jim_Callahan: PsiChick: /I've said it before and I'll say it again: If there is prize money involved,  it is not a legitimate scientific anything, it is a  contest. They are  not the same.

Man, you're going to be really disappointed when you find out where the test subject for every branch of science requiring human tests come from, including all medical science.

Yes, they're paid. They're paid regardless of results. Randi  only pays given  one result, and pays from his own pocket instead of grant money.

If you think it's unbiased, why hasn't Randi gotten grant funding yet?

Well, another one to farkie as "Nutter."

Yes, clearly it's just insane to insist we not bend the rules of what constitute bias just because we throw in the magic word 'psychic'. How 'nutty' of me.

/The reason science is considered so important is because the rules  don't change; the standards of evidence, bias, and other criteria remain the same for  all cases. That helps keeps results accurate. If you want to fark with that, you're not a scientist, you're an idiot.

Would it be not science if I offered a reward for a fossil proving human and dinosaur coexistence?  As long as the methods are sound and the evidence is properly studied, the reward did nothing other than provide the motivation for people to supply testable samples.

Randi isn't exactly doing that, but the greater point is that by offering a reward he's drawing attention to the fact that no one has claimed it.  It's public outreach with tiny science filling.

The bold part is the really big point.

To start with (warning: Nerding ahead), 'psychic' is a cultural term. The experiences of, say, visions, are a human universal--the  an da shealladh of Scotland, the drawings of Australian aborigines, etc.--and that goes for quite a few other 'psychic' experiences. Now, those experiences  have been proven real. The University of College London and University of Granada both linked synthesia to reading and working with auras; this Italian study shows evidence that ESP, as a phenomenon, occurs at a rate higher than chance. We know what parts of the brain light up during the experiences of mediums. There's even a study of Scottish seers (the  an da shealladh I mentioned) showing an inheretence pattern  consistent with a Mendelian gene. So we can safely say that the  physical side of it, well, you have to be a farking idiot to ignore that something's happening.

So, if Randi were putting out a public-service stunt to tell people about evidence, well, that'd still be anti-ethical since he's pretending it's an experiment as hard as he can...but as it is? That's a hell of a lot of blue links on my side, and a guy who  can change the rules of his 'experiment' whenever he wants and has a million dollars at stake on the other.

I know which one I wouldn't submit as a paper.


If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?
 
2013-05-05 09:36:29 PM  

PsiChick: Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.


I thought "nutter" was the technical term for Aspies, is it not?

/you and I oughta hang out and go to Shambhala or something...
 
2013-05-05 09:37:39 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?


Why would a psychic admit they're psychic?

Warren Buffet and Daniel Negreanu are doing just fine, thank you....
 
2013-05-05 09:42:03 PM  

Ishkur: Gyrfalcon: It doesn't prove that it was evolution and furthermore.

We turned the grey wolf into the farking chihuahua and he doesn't think that's evolution?


THAT is a travesty.
 
2013-05-05 09:46:49 PM  

Ishkur: SkinnyHead: The same can be said of your car. Every car has parts that are inefficient, harmful, and downright deadly. Does that mean that there is no evidence that any part of your car was designed?

Cars don't replicate themselves. That's why we know they are designed.

Life DOES replicate itself, so needs no designer.


That's an interesting observation.  But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself?  It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution.  So the ability to replicate does require a designer.
 
2013-05-05 09:52:21 PM  

skullkrusher: I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid


How about some ladybug cosplay?

www.gadailynews.com
 
2013-05-05 09:54:20 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: I'd enjoy seeing Ms O'Donnell nekkid

How about some ladybug cosplay?

[www.gadailynews.com image 306x818]


I'd take it
 
2013-05-05 09:55:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution


Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.
 
2013-05-05 09:55:31 PM  
I love Louisiana.

/St. Louisan
 
2013-05-05 09:56:42 PM  

SkinnyHead: So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


The existence of a designer requires a designer.  The existence of a designer designer requires a designer.  The existence of a designer designer designer requires a designer. The existence of a designer designer  designer designer requires a designer. The existence of a designer designer designer designer designer requires a designer......
 
2013-05-05 09:58:39 PM  

COMALite J: WordyGrrl: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: So because you believe those things are settled, based on thousands of Fark threads, students should not be allowed to use logic or critical thinking skills in addressing those topics? Isn't that an anti-logic position?

Riddle me this (because I'm bored).

Why should creationism be taught in a science class in a public school? It's not a scientifically valid theory.

"Because a theory is just a guess!"

[az58332.vo.msecnd.net image 432x575][www.pedaltonepublishing.com image 350x457][www.hatfieldmusic.com image 173x216][store.drumbum.com image 139x180][i43.tower.com image 200x263][edwintchilds.com image 200x267][ia600804.us.archive.org image 368x500][thechurchpianist.com image 313x400]
Oh, wow! Music hasn't been proven to actually exist! It's just a theeeeeeeory!!


"The laws of physics are not God's laws! therefore... I can fly!"
/Tee hee hee
 
2013-05-05 09:59:40 PM  

Ishkur: PsiChick: Scroll up and read the blue links I posted. If I'm actually a nutter, you should be able to find something scientifically wrong with the methodology of any of those papers.

I thought "nutter" was the technical term for Aspies, is it not?

/you and I oughta hang out and go to Shambhala or something...


Well, yes, but I  can recognize the connotations...:p

/Yeah, we should.
//Or watch Big Bang Theory or something.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: If someone were really psychic, wouldn't they know when and how Randi planned to change the rules, and thus be able to avoid the pitfalls?


Which psychic talent are they displaying? Synthesia\auras? How would that help? Visions? Maybe, but all reports indicate they're uncontrollable. ESP? Most likely, but they'd be spying on Randi most of the time...

/See, the people who claim psychics know everything are the ones who  aren't psychic.
 
2013-05-05 09:59:52 PM  
Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-05 10:02:36 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I'm going to be very unhappy if I find that picture is not an April Fool's Day thing, which had been my guess until now.


I have no doubt it's real.  "Were you there?" is a big Ken Ham thing.  The idea that "were you there" could also apply to literally everything older than 100 years or so seems lost on him.
 
2013-05-05 10:03:44 PM  

Ishkur: vygramul: Skinnyhead doesn't understand how you can falsify evolution because he is unimaginative.

Falsifying evolution is as hard as falsifying gravity because it's so farking obvious. He'd have to prove that every species in the world does not change or adapt to its environment. We've witnessed that happening! Hell, we've directed it with animal husbandry, evolving specific traits for our needs over thousands of years.

What did he think was going on when we did that?


Intelligent design. After all, it was our intelligent hand at work.
 
2013-05-05 10:04:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


Stop, stupid.
 
2013-05-05 10:04:29 PM  

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?

Awesome!

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 400x240]


media.tumblr.com

"I'm not a witch," my ass...
 
2013-05-05 10:05:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.


It is?  How did it get there?
 
2013-05-05 10:09:08 PM  
Oo ee oo ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang

/You're welcome.
 
2013-05-05 10:09:55 PM  

Apos: Has....Has this somehow morphed into a Christine O'Donnell thread?


Awesome!


It's some weird Christine O'Donnell slash SkinnyHead slash psychics are real to me damn it thread. So it's Fark, basically.
 
2013-05-05 10:10:11 PM  

SkinnyHead: That's an interesting observation. But how did life acquire the ability to replicate itself? It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution. So the ability to replicate does require a designer.


What do you mean "acquired"? Life has always been able to replicate. If it didn't, it wouldn't be life. In fact, one of the very definitions of life is the ability to replicate. So you can't divorce the two and say one existed without the other (for very long). Life is replication, and replication is life.

Secondly, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two entirely separate things. The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency over time. That's all it does. It does not specify why this mechanism is there, is just explains how it works.

Now, as for how life got to be life in the beginning, its a fascinating story. Allow me to explain (go get some coffee):

Physics, chemistry and biology are what make life. In that order: You need the physics to attract the elements, the chemistry to form the molecules, and the biology to combine the compounds. Because of this, certain things are always going to happen in the Universe because of physical laws. For instance, all snowflakes are going to form hexagrams because of the triangular shape of water molecules (H2O).

Much like the structure of the snowflake, life also has very few options. Sure, we see unlimited diversity all around us, but it's all obedient to a single basic form, like fingerprints. With all the elements and all the molecules and all the possible choices in the Universe, when it comes down to it, life only has one chance to exist. The secret is carbon.

All life on Earth is carbon-based. Why carbon?

Well, let's break this down statistically. Hydrogen and Helium make up about 98% of the Universe. If we want to argue for random chance creating life, we should all be gaseous entities. But we're not and probably for good reason. Hydrogen is highly flammable and only useful for igniting stars, not life (its simplistic structure makes it an excellent bonding agent but more on that later). And Helium is a noble gas and is therefore inert to the complex chemical reactions required for life as we know it. So no dice there.

Oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur make up about 99.999% of that other 2%. If life can't be made from these basic ingredients, there is absolutely no chance with any heavier elements because they're far too rare to occur in any abundant capacity favorable toward life. So let's work with these.

Neon is also a noble gas, so you can nix that idea. Of the rest, only carbon and silicon are tetravalent, meaning they bond really well with other elements to the point where they can form long, complex chemical chains that might eventually sort of kind of maybe exhibit some characteristics that one might conceivably hesitate to consider almost proto-life. Per se.

Wait - carbon and silicon? So where is the silicon-based life? Especially since silicon is about 135 times more abundant on Earth than carbon. Statistically speaking silicon should have been the runaway winner. There should be a separate, affluent domain of silicon organisms lurking about, vying for foodstuffs. Why are there not any funky silicon-based plants?

Well, as it turns out, silicon just isn't very good at making the compounds that beget the acids that beget the peptides that beget the proteins that beget the enzymes that beget the nucleotides that beget the polynucleotides that beget the RNA that beget the DNA that beget the chromosomes that beget the nucleolus that beget the nuclei that beget the cells that beget the life that beget the multi-cellular life that beget the complex multi-cellular life that beget the intelligent complex multi-cellular life that beget the books with lots of begets in them.

For one thing, silicon is almost 2.5 times heavier than carbon. Its size and density makes it cumbersome for forming long, complex chemical chains required for life. So although the bonds are strong, they frequently break apart. Silicon is like the fat kid on the school playground who makes friends easily but none of his relationships last very long (usually after a ride on the teeter-totter). Carbon is the popular kid - the Ferris Bueller of atoms. It can bond well with damn near anything, especially other carbon.

The other essential ingredients to life are hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. With carbon they make the Big Four. When carbon bonds with oxygen it creates gases called oxides which are really useful for interacting with other chemical bondy things. It does the same thing with hydrogen too - the gases are called alkanes. And with nitrogen it makes nitryls and imines and other gaseous stuff.

Gases are really useful for complex chemical reactions and carbon makes this easy to do. When silicon bonds with the other three elements it makes hydrosilanes, nitrides and quartz (with oxygen), which is a rock that just sits there not doing anything fun.

Probably the most important advantage carbon has over silicon is how it reacts to water. Carbon chains are unaffected in water. Silicon chains dissolve. This is crucial because a water-based medium offers less stress to biochemical processes than a dry one. In other words, gravity is strong, land is hard, and atmospheres don't help atoms get together. If life is going to get invented it needs the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment to work its magic. It's a good thing our planet has plenty of it.

So there you go. Carbon is lighter, more robust, it makes complex longer-lasting chains, it makes gases with other elements and it loves the water. Silicon is heavy, inefficient, hates the water and everything it bonds with turns to hard, lifeless rock.

We have now narrowed down the complexity of a random series of events to one possible atom that is extremely adept at chemical bonds all by itself without anyone's help. There are, of course, hundreds more steps to go, but just getting to this point through physics instead of divine interference is pretty impressive.

So let's whistle through this process as fast as possible and get to the point. During the tumultuous period of early Earth known as the Archean era, complex carbon chemical chains constantly banged into other complex carbon chemical chains. Sometimes nothing happened and sometimes they stuck together, producing organic acids. Sometimes, due to planetary bombardment or other factors, heavy pressure and heat fused these acids together to create peptides. These peptides were simple polymers (repeating molecular structures, usually in some elegant pattern like a lattice) and some of them gathered more organic acids to extend their patterns, in effect copying themselves. No one told them to do this. They were compelled to do it through the physical forces and properties of the Universe. In fact, they can't not do it. They're just doing what molecules do.

The more complicated the copies got, the less accurate the copying became. The laws of physics acted like a sifter of the copying process - the weak copies broke apart and didn't do anything while the strong copies assembled more acids and continued copying.

Once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement: The peptides grew larger and folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins. Some proteins were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process of replication, improving efficiency. The accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids (hydrophobic fat molecules) for use as insular membranes against harm. In time, these became vesicles and then hardened, cellular walls. This permitted the formation of symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption, including vacuoles, centrioles, lysosomes, nucleic acid and ribosomes. These were the first proto-cells.

This is not something that just happened, suddenly and unexpectedly, with no precursor. This was an arduous, painstaking process that probably took a billion years and needed a lot of favorable conditions to progress through its myriad stages, including an abundant level of carbon, a watery environment, lots of heat and pressure and maybe even an orbital bombardment period or two. That always helps.

The history of life on Earth - which for 90% of living history was smaller than the naked eye - is largely the history of changes in our atmosphere's composition due to chemical reactions within these self-replicating microscopic engines. These things did nothing but consume sunlight and carbon and produce oxygen as a waste product for billions of years. The same oxygen we breathe today.

Our understanding of the origin of life is far from complete. There are still a lot of things we don't quite understand about how it all fits together. Really, none of this is as far-fetched as it sounds. The thing you must understand that it was not some crazy roll of the dice that purposed life - it happened naturally and inevitably. These chemical chains started forming not from some insurmountable cosmic fluke but because they preferred to. The simple physics of the Universe and its properties compelled these molecules to form together and we are the happy result of that.

Life exists because it's impossible for it not to exist.
 
2013-05-05 10:10:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: It can't be explained by evolution, because evolution requires the ability to replicate before there can be evolution

Yes, it can be explained by evolution, because the ability to replicate is in genetic code.

It is?  How did it get there?


Do you really need DNA replication explained to you? Or genetic mutation? I'm sure in real life you're smarter than that.
 
Displayed 50 of 379 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report