Skip to content
 
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.

(Cracked)   Seven animals that are conspiring with atheist scientists to destroy God   (cracked.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14583 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 May 2011 at 2:42 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-05-19 11:54:37 AM  

DarwiOdrade: bookman: Pretty much this. Evolution is an elegant method, and God invented it.


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)

Why do you insist on thinking in stereotypes. Don't you know that's a sign of an inferior mind?


That was part of the joke which you didn't get. Duh.
 
2011-05-19 12:01:37 PM  

bookman: DarwiOdrade: bookman: Pretty much this. Evolution is an elegant method, and God invented it.


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)

Why do you insist on thinking in stereotypes. Don't you know that's a sign of an inferior mind?

That was part of the joke which you didn't get. Duh.


uh huh

[trollface.jpg]
 
2011-05-19 12:02:53 PM  

bookman: DarwiOdrade: bookman: Pretty much this. Evolution is an elegant method, and God invented it.


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)

Why do you insist on thinking in stereotypes. Don't you know that's a sign of an inferior mind?

That was part of the joke which you didn't get. Duh.


I know. Stupid libs. Amirite???
 
2011-05-19 12:03:18 PM  
7 Animals That Are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the "paradox of the visibly irrelevant"-or, if you can see it at all, it's too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
 
2011-05-19 12:04:16 PM  
THERE you are! Jesus. Slacking again, are we!??
 
2011-05-19 12:07:44 PM  

untaken_name: No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species.


i see the old macro vs. micro bit being tossed around in here again, prolly mostly trolling but just in case, i can't help but notice that only species are being mentioned

so then there is no possibility that micro vs. macro can include the transition between other structures such as Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, etc..?

tl;dr

is it just me or is the micro vs macro debate = species, a bit of a tired old strawman? does anyone actually argue this?
 
2011-05-19 12:08:05 PM  
A key element in elephant attractiveness is musk. The older a male elephant is, the longer and stronger the periods of musk. Older elephants are survivors and therefor attractive to the females. Tusk size is also a proxy for age, but without musk, the ladies aren't much interested. Fewer tusked elephants survive to the strong musk point (30+ years), more tuckless elephants breed.
 
2011-05-19 12:11:35 PM  

GilRuiz1: CheekyMonkey: Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.

You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?


No, it would be much more conservative of resources if they were all processed to extract all of the spare parts, blood, and stuff. Just think: take apart 6.5 billion human beings and store the various organs and blood (well, blood is technically an organ) for future use of the EEs (Ecological Elites) chosen to bravely strive forward into a new world freed of the threat of human overpopulation.

It really is a grand image if you are one of the select 500,000,000. If not, not so much...
 
2011-05-19 12:16:10 PM  

I drunk what: untaken_name: No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species.

i see the old macro vs. micro bit being tossed around in here again, prolly mostly trolling but just in case, i can't help but notice that only species are being mentioned

so then there is no possibility that micro vs. macro can include the transition between other structures such as Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, etc..?

tl;dr

is it just me or is the micro vs macro debate = species, a bit of a tired old strawman? does anyone actually argue this?


People do, noobs, not necessarily trolls. Not necessarily Poe's law either many people in general just don't have a clue what either is, how they relate, and even less about evolution. Unless you're a geek/nerd like me and like some others in this thread, it's generally not something that ever sparks many peoples interests enough to find out. IMO, that's my general take of it.
 
2011-05-19 12:31:38 PM  

GilRuiz1: Those people don't want to see mass epidemics where billions perish, right?


Not for any rational, scientific reasons.
 
2011-05-19 12:34:09 PM  
Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human(without farking one, first).
 
2011-05-19 12:38:18 PM  

s2s2s2: Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human(without farking one, first).


Took me a minute, but I found a few.
 
2011-05-19 12:38:49 PM  

s2s2s2: Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human(without farking one, first).


something something your mom something
 
2011-05-19 12:40:13 PM  

ninjakirby: s2s2s2: Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human(without farking one, first).

Took me a minute, but I found a few.


Ooh, sorry missed the sex part. Here we go, no sex involved. =]
 
2011-05-19 12:44:13 PM  

ninjakirby: Took me a minute, but I found a few


You got me. Let me rephrase.

Let me know when Koko gives birth to a human without farking one first.

I'd probably be wiser to ask for her to give birth to a Gorkitteh.
 
2011-05-19 12:47:44 PM  

I drunk what: so then there is no possibility that micro vs. macro can include the transition between other structures such as Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, etc..?


Not existing structures. Significant changes over a very long time would result in new branches, not merges with the existing ones. Evolution is not a house cat turning into a potted plant. Evolution is your house cat or your potted plant having distant descendants that are so completely different that they can no longer be classified as mammals or leafy ferns.

Remember that such structures are arbitrary methods of classification, not properties of the organisms themselves.
 
2011-05-19 12:51:42 PM  

Jack31081: xkillyourfacex: None of the examples in the article involve organisms acquiring new attributes from genetic changes.

The elephants without tusks were already around, there already were moths of that color, etc etc.

The animals are not evolving before our very eyes.

So, you're discounting the article because it's not about the FIRST tuskless elephant? Yes, the genes are already in the population. The examples shown concern the spread of said gene through the population...a necessary element of evolution.

The population is evolving before our very eyes, not the individual animals. You seem to be looking for single mutations, but that's only the very first step of evolution.


The population is evolving, but not organisms? Umm... So what then?? You know full damn well what most people mean when they say "an animal is evolving" and it's a lot more than "here are some animals, and over here are some different animals". Which is basically all you've managed to accomplish by pointing at elephants with tusks existing alongside elephants without tusks.

That is not the normal expectation one has when someone says "But the elephants are evolving to not have tusks". They think elephants without tusks are being generated where they were not generated before.

If evolution has so many god damned different meanings and we never know which definition you guys are using at any different time, maybe you should just start using a brand new farking word, one that means precisely the same thing in any context, and just stick to using that one, oK?

And when did I say natural selection wasn't a necessary component of evolution? I said it wasn't evolution. That's all. But hell, you guys seem to change the definition of the word evolution to whatever is convenient, whenever it is convenient to make your point, so maybe today, I am wrong. Today, maybe natural selection and evolution are the exacct same thing?? Anyways, please don't draw conclusions from words I never wrote, about ideas I never espoused, that's not constructive.
 
2011-05-19 12:57:55 PM  

xkillyourfacex: The population is evolving, but not organisms? Umm... So what then?? You know full damn well what most people mean when they say "an animal is evolving" and it's a lot more than "here are some animals, and over here are some different animals". Which is basically all you've managed to accomplish by pointing at elephants with tusks existing alongside elephants without tusks.

That is not the normal expectation one has when someone says "But the elephants are evolving to not have tusks". They think elephants without tusks are being generated where they were not generated before.

If evolution has so many god damned different meanings and we never know which definition you guys are using at any different time, maybe you should just start using a brand new farking word, one that means precisely the same thing in any context, and just stick to using that one, oK?

And when did I say natural selection wasn't a necessary component of evolution? I said it wasn't evolution. That's all. But hell, you guys seem to change the definition of the word evolution to whatever is convenient, whenever it is convenient to make your point, so maybe today, I am wrong. Today, maybe natural selection and evolution are the exacct same thing?? Anyways, please don't draw conclusions from words I never wrote, about ideas I never espoused, that's not constructive.


Regardless of how you want to interpret my post, you're implying that the spread of a genetic variation (tusklessness) through a population of elephants does not constitute evolution.

That implication is false.
 
2011-05-19 1:03:11 PM  

Jack31081: xkillyourfacex: The population is evolving, but not organisms? Umm... So what then?? You know full damn well what most people mean when they say "an animal is evolving" and it's a lot more than "here are some animals, and over here are some different animals". Which is basically all you've managed to accomplish by pointing at elephants with tusks existing alongside elephants without tusks.

That is not the normal expectation one has when someone says "But the elephants are evolving to not have tusks". They think elephants without tusks are being generated where they were not generated before.

If evolution has so many god damned different meanings and we never know which definition you guys are using at any different time, maybe you should just start using a brand new farking word, one that means precisely the same thing in any context, and just stick to using that one, oK?

And when did I say natural selection wasn't a necessary component of evolution? I said it wasn't evolution. That's all. But hell, you guys seem to change the definition of the word evolution to whatever is convenient, whenever it is convenient to make your point, so maybe today, I am wrong. Today, maybe natural selection and evolution are the exacct same thing?? Anyways, please don't draw conclusions from words I never wrote, about ideas I never espoused, that's not constructive.

Regardless of how you want to interpret my post, you're implying that the spread of a genetic variation (tusklessness) through a population of elephants does not constitute evolution.

That implication is false.


His goalposts are also on wheels.
 
2011-05-19 1:15:20 PM  

Shazam999: Ah, I see the bevets-bot woke up from his pot-induced slumber.


He's high on God, man.
 
2011-05-19 1:27:15 PM  
xkillyourfacex: If evolution has so many god damned different meanings and we never know which definition you guys are using at any different time, maybe you should just start using a brand new farking word, one that means precisely the same thing in any context, and just stick to using that one, oK?

I gave the definition of evolution that biologists use in the top post of this thread, just before the second one. If you didn't pay attention in your biology classes enough to learn that simple fact, or couldn't be bothered to pay attention again when it was given here, then your apparent confusion of the meaning of the word *as used in biology* is your own fault.
 
2011-05-19 1:40:53 PM  

xanadian: I know. Stupid libs. Amirite??


libs! libs! libs!

you are correct sir!

IF YOU COULD REASON WITH LIBS
img.listal.comView Full Size

THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LIBS
 
2011-05-19 1:48:05 PM  

xkillyourfacex: If evolution has so many god damned different meanings and we never know which definition you guys are using at any


AND FURTHERMORE WHY DO THE WORDS TO, TOO, AND TWO ALL SOUND THE SAME THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AND FURTHERMORE
 
2011-05-19 1:55:22 PM  

xkillyourfacex: TFA one big div/zero. Natural selection isn't evolution.

abb3w: That said, none of TFA's examples look to involve a speciation event. Contrariwise, it does look like the demarcation between Polar and Grizzly bears wasn't a full species-level divide, but merely a temporary allopatric barrier.

Whatever you say. The rest of us don't have a hard time telling the difference between, say, an animal with wings and one without.

None of the examples in the article involve organisms acquiring new attributes from genetic changes.

The elephants without tusks were already around, there already were moths of that color, etc etc.

The animals are not evolving before our very eyes.


So a lizard giving birth to live offspring, and beginning to develop a placenta, is not "acquiring new attributes from genetic changes"?
 
2011-05-19 1:59:40 PM  
ahha. This is EXACTLY the problem with the theory of Natural Selection....

The fact that there are more elephants roaming about without tusks has nothing to do with more elephants born without tusks or elephants choosing tuskless mates....

Its simply by virtue of hunters killing the tusked population, and not the tuskless population. They tuskless population is just the leftover.

The tusk population descreases due to hunting, while the tuskless population just stays at the same status quo, however appear to being thriving proportionally to the entire elephant population due to the aforementioned hunting of the tusked.

True, that the tuskless elephant is now more suited to live in the enivronment than the tusked, but its because of process of elimination, not because it somehow decided to genetically evolve to suit its environment.
 
2011-05-19 2:00:15 PM  

xkillyourfacex: we never know which definition you guys are using at any different time


what ever you do, DO NOT ask them what Nature means

i dunno why that would be important in these little "debates" anyhow...???

speaking of which:

Infinite Monkey: Evolution is your house cat or your potted plant having distant descendants that are so completely different that they can no longer be classified as mammals or leafy ferns.


hey that's neat, ask mamoru if he thinks the cambrian explosion proves that God created Life, or if he could provide us with a nice atheistic "science" explanation for that particular phenomenon

since he is the trooper's evolution "expert" after all, i'm sure he can handle such a thing

and just for bonus points see if he can define Nature, since all legit scientists can at least show that they can understand it

of course if he cannot do either, especially the 2nd part, then i expect you to expose him for the fraud he is

in this and any other evolution-related thread he trolls in

/make me proud lad
 
2011-05-19 2:04:14 PM  

T.rex: ahha. This is EXACTLY the problem with the theory of Natural Selection....

The fact that there are more elephants roaming about without tusks has nothing to do with more elephants born without tusks or elephants choosing tuskless mates....

Its simply by virtue of hunters killing the tusked population, and not the tuskless population. They tuskless population is just the leftover.

The tusk population descreases due to hunting, while the tuskless population just stays at the same status quo, however appear to being thriving proportionally to the entire elephant population due to the aforementioned hunting of the tusked.

True, that the tuskless elephant is now more suited to live in the enivronment than the tusked, but its because of process of elimination, not because it somehow decided to genetically evolve to suit its environment.


1) The means of selection is irrelevant. Selection is selection.

2) As stated before, you're missing the fact that a higher percentage of elephants are born without tusks than before. Whereas before maybe 3-5% of elephants were born tuskless, that number is now up to 10% or perhaps even higher.

The tusklessness trait is actively spreading through the population. If this continues, fewer and fewer elephants will be born with tusks.
 
2011-05-19 2:08:09 PM  
T.rex:

Also, this type of selection occurs all the time in nature. You have a predator/prey pair. As the predator kills the prey, those with any kind of defense against the predator (be it camoflage, lack of desired trait in the eyes of the predator, active defense mechanisms, etc), will be more likely to spread those traits through the population, because they're not being chosen by the predator. Eventually, the entire population has that trait.

We're the predators, elephants are the prey.
 
2011-05-19 2:10:12 PM  

T.rex: ahha. This is EXACTLY the problem with the theory of Natural Selection....

The fact that there are more elephants roaming about without tusks has nothing to do with more elephants born without tusks or elephants choosing tuskless mates....

Its simply by virtue of hunters killing the tusked population, and not the tuskless population. They tuskless population is just the leftover.

The tusk population descreases due to hunting, while the tuskless population just stays at the same status quo, however appear to being thriving proportionally to the entire elephant population due to the aforementioned hunting of the tusked.

True, that the tuskless elephant is now more suited to live in the enivronment than the tusked, but its because of process of elimination, not because it somehow decided to genetically evolve to suit its environment.


Human action is not separate from nature. We are a part of that environment. Evolution does not play favorites with selection pressures, they all count, whether from a human source or a non-human source. In this case, the selection pressure is the hunting. The way the population genetics changes is evolution in action.
 
2011-05-19 2:10:42 PM  

T.rex: ahha. This is EXACTLY the problem with the theory of Natural Selection....

The fact that there are more elephants roaming about without tusks has nothing to do with more elephants born without tusks or elephants choosing tuskless mates....

Its simply by virtue of hunters killing the tusked population, and not the tuskless population. They tuskless population is just the leftover.

The tusk population descreases due to hunting, while the tuskless population just stays at the same status quo, however appear to being thriving proportionally to the entire elephant population due to the aforementioned hunting of the tusked.

True, that the tuskless elephant is now more suited to live in the enivronment than the tusked, but its because of process of elimination, not because it somehow decided to genetically evolve to suit its environment.


Go away you anti-vaccination, AIDS caused by HIV denying, creationist fool.
 
2011-05-19 2:21:58 PM  
home.earthlink.netView Full Size


No "Alabama" or "pajamas" yet?
 
2011-05-19 3:38:00 PM  

I drunk what: hey that's neat, ask mamoru if he thinks the cambrian explosion proves that God created Life, or if he could provide us with a nice atheistic "science" explanation for that particular phenomenon


We've been over this multiple times, and you know it.

T.rex: True, that the tuskless elephant is now more suited to live in the enivronment than the tusked, but its because of process of elimination, not because it somehow decided to genetically evolve to suit its environment.


Evolution doesn't involve "deciding" anything, any more than a stream of water flowing down your driveway from the hose "decides" on the specific route it takes to get to the road. What you described is actually a perfect example of how this works- although the tusks are very useful to elephants, the elephants with tusks find themselves in an environment that, due to a hominid predator species, cannot compete with the tuskless elephants.
 
2011-05-19 3:43:34 PM  
True all. I acknowledge that selection is selection, regardless of the means, but just pointing out that one should not have the premise in their head that nature is 'aware' of what is happening, and taking steps towards it on purpose. Its just the end result. There was no intent.

i simply refuse to believe that giraffe's grew long necks so that they could reach the outermost leaves. They have long necks because the ones that had long necks were able to thrive better than the ones that didn't, and eventually they became dominant. But, nature didn't give them long neck in pursuit of that goal. It was just a quirk that turned out to suit them.

meat0918Christ, thats really immature to troll a specific person on a message board. Troll my beliefs, fine, but to go out of your way to target a person... That just sucks. You suck for doing it. The fact that i question some aspects of what some people consider science, does not make me a creationist. I'm not even sure i believe in God, but even if i did or did not i wouldn't scorn personally someone who held an opposite belief. In fact, i can only conclude that i irk you so much because you fear i'm right.
 
2011-05-19 3:51:49 PM  

T.rex: True all. I acknowledge that selection is selection, regardless of the means, but just pointing out that one should not have the premise in their head that nature is 'aware' of what is happening, and taking steps towards it on purpose. Its just the end result. There was no intent.

i simply refuse to believe that giraffe's grew long necks so that they could reach the outermost leaves. They have long necks because the ones that had long necks were able to thrive better than the ones that didn't, and eventually they became dominant. But, nature didn't give them long neck in pursuit of that goal. It was just a quirk that turned out to suit them.


Um, yes. That's it exactly. Congratulations, you have reached exactly the conclusion of the mainstream of biology.

There is no intentionality to evolution specifically or nature more generally whatsoever. The suggestion that there is such intentionality is a common misunderstanding, as well as a creationist talking point.

If a mutation helps you survive in your particular environment, you tend to have more kids, and over successive generations the incidence of the gene that produced that mutation grows in the population. No intent, no decision making is involved in that phenomenon.

Now, there was a biologist name of Lamarck that suggested that evolution was the conservation of acquired traits, that the giraffe got its long neck from stretching intentionally to reach the topmost leaves. He is notable because his was a competing theory to Darwin and Wallace's theory, which was roundly and soundly disproven.
 
2011-05-19 3:53:02 PM  

KiltedBastich: Now, there was a biologist name of Lamarck that suggested that evolution was the conservation of acquired traits, that the giraffe got its long neck from stretching intentionally to reach the topmost leaves. He is notable because his was a competing theory to Darwin and Wallace's theory, which was roundly and soundly disproven.


Er, Lamarck's theory was the one disproven, I may have been slightly unclear there at the end.
 
2011-05-19 3:57:25 PM  
3 posts in the last 1h 20mins! You guys nerded this post into the ground. Where's the derp to entertain me at work I say?

I'll jump start this stalled thread!

Ha! I see the article conveniently left out 1 animal, the monkey! If evilution is real, why do they exist?
 
2011-05-19 4:05:36 PM  

T.rex: True all. I acknowledge that selection is selection, regardless of the means, but just pointing out that one should not have the premise in their head that nature is 'aware' of what is happening, and taking steps towards it on purpose. Its just the end result. There was no intent.

i simply refuse to believe that giraffe's grew long necks so that they could reach the outermost leaves. They have long necks because the ones that had long necks were able to thrive better than the ones that didn't, and eventually they became dominant. But, nature didn't give them long neck in pursuit of that goal. It was just a quirk that turned out to suit them.

meat0918Christ, thats really immature to troll a specific person on a message board. Troll my beliefs, fine, but to go out of your way to target a person... That just sucks. You suck for doing it. The fact that i question some aspects of what some people consider science, does not make me a creationist. I'm not even sure i believe in God, but even if i did or did not i wouldn't scorn personally someone who held an opposite belief. In fact, i can only conclude that i irk you so much because you fear i'm right.


Not trolling, legitimately asking you to leave.
 
2011-05-19 4:20:11 PM  

Infinite Monkey: We've been over this multiple times, and you know it.


you've asked mamoru about his thoughts on the cambrian explosion? can you link me the thread where this conversation took place?

/btw did you ask him to debunk those vids i'm always linking you to?
//cause i'd like to hear about that as well

does he know what nature is? feel free to spoil it for me
 
2011-05-19 4:21:46 PM  

BreezyWheeze: Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.


No, the earth's biodiversity would not be better off. All the animals we like to hunt would be better off, all the animals we think are cute might be better off. Overall biodiversity might be farked for eternity, but what do we care, as long we get what we want--huntin' and fishin' and a couple of purty animals to look at.
 
2011-05-19 4:24:55 PM  

cryinoutloud: BreezyWheeze: Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.

No, the earth's biodiversity would not be better off. All the animals we like to hunt would be better off, all the animals we think are cute might be better off. Overall biodiversity might be farked for eternity, but what do we care, as long we get what we want--huntin' and fishin' and a couple of purty animals to look at.


Nah, nature abhors a vacuum, and if there is a resource to exploit, some animal/plant/fungi/etc. will use it, and some will use it better than others, eventually increasing some of the lost biodiversity.
 
2011-05-19 4:26:28 PM  
mamoru:

this is a reminder that biological evolution is defined as genetic change in a population over time (more usually and specifically, the change in allele frequencies over time); while the appearance of new features and new species can be results of these changes, such results are not required in order for evolution occur. All that is required is genetic change over time, whether positive, negative, or neutral

Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson
 
2011-05-19 4:26:44 PM  
Oh, and when Teddy Roosevelt was alive, there weren't even two billion people on the planet. Maybe that had something to do with how wonderful and Eden-like everything was then.
 
2011-05-19 4:28:07 PM  

vactech: Where's the derp to entertain me at work I say?


we're still waiting to hear mamoru's thoughts on evolution and whether or not he can properly use 'nature' in a sentence (or understand it), IM tried to subtly drop a hint to him, but mamoru isn't known for recognizing such things

try the direct approach lad! use small words and lots of pictures
 
2011-05-19 4:28:33 PM  

meat0918: Not trolling, legitimately asking you to leave.


The thing is, in this particular case he is actually agreeing with the standard definition of evolution. So... yay, progress?
 
2011-05-19 4:32:16 PM  

KiltedBastich: meat0918: Not trolling, legitimately asking you to leave.

The thing is, in this particular case he is actually agreeing with the standard definition of evolution. So... yay, progress?


To progress then!
dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 4:39:36 PM  

I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: We've been over this multiple times, and you know it.

you've asked mamoru about his thoughts on the cambrian explosion?


No. I have explained to you that your concept of it is wrong, that it does not not present a single problem for evolutionary theory because of the immense time scale of the "explosion" and the increasing availability of atmospheric oxygen to make new biological strategies possible.

You tend to cycle quickly through anti-evolution arguments. Why you're still latching on to this one, I can't fathom.
 
2011-05-19 4:44:23 PM  

Bevets: mamoru:

this is a reminder that biological evolution is defined as genetic change in a population over time (more usually and specifically, the change in allele frequencies over time); while the appearance of new features and new species can be results of these changes, such results are not required in order for evolution occur. All that is required is genetic change over time, whether positive, negative, or neutral

Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson


are you at all capable of making an original thought, or do you just quote random people to try and appear educated?
 
2011-05-19 4:54:49 PM  

untaken_name: Learn some science.


Oh sweet irony.

Ask a scientist about micro vs macro evolution. Any scientist who went to a real university, will tell you that there is no actual difference between them and that using speciation as hallmark of "real" evolution is disingenuous at best.
 
2011-05-19 4:59:16 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I have explained to you that your concept of it is wrong


ORLY?

please remind me what my concept of it is

then, explain why it is wrong

Infinite Monkey: that it does not not present a single problem for evolutionary theory because of the immense time scale of the "explosion" and the increasing availability of atmospheric oxygen to make new biological strategies possible


does mamoru concur with your analysis? again if he were to debunk some videos, i would be much obliged, perhaps you can get his two cents? if you've forgotten the links i can dig em up for ya

Infinite Monkey: You tend to cycle quickly through anti-evolution arguments


i doubt that, since i very rarely even humor these poo flinging contests, i'm just here for the religion stuff, but i'm trying to avoid derailment for at least a post or two

Infinite Monkey: Why you're still latching on to this one, I can't fathom


because it is actually worth discussing? because it isn't the usual routine of straw men and fallacy competitions that usuallly fills these threads?

ah, now i see why you don't want to discuss it

perhaps you'd accidentally stumble across some information that the IB wouldn't be comfortable with, you're right we better change the subject... and fast

poor mamoru has a reputation to uphold

there are still a few farkers that think his farts smell delicious and we shouldn't ruin that illusion for them

quick, throw up a smokescreen and talk how stuff changes and pretend like that is what the debate is about
 
2011-05-19 5:00:56 PM  

mamoru: Diagonal: And WhyteRaven74 is correct -- evolution is evolution. The "micro- macro- evolution" canard is an invention of the creationists and has no part of "'real' 'science.'"

That is not correct. The way creationists abuse the terms is incorrect, but they are valid and useful scientific terms. See the post I made previous to yours. :)


They may be valid scientific terms, but the processes they describe are essentially the same. That is to say that they do not describe different "types" of evolution, but rather evolutionary processes studies at different scales.

/So I agree with both of you I guess.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





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.