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 »)
 
 
2011-05-19 12:35:05 AM  
*sigh*

Well, this will either be a very interesting discussion about these organisms and their situations, and the study of biological evolution in general

-or-

it will be another "religion vs. science" poo-flinging contest where the exact same arguments are re-hashed, the exact same talking points are re-debunked, and basically everything but TFA is discussed.

If I were a betting man...

That said, while the examples in the article are very interesting examples of "evolution in action", they are neither surprising nor uncommon. It would be a real challenge to find any example that wouldn't fit, as evolution* is always in action. I would, however, love to see references to actual studies involving the organisms in TFA, especially genetic studies and such. It would be very interesting to see what genetic changes are happening to cause these changes in phenotype and if there are any pleiotropic effects causing unforeseen side-effects. Among other things.

* 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
 
2011-05-19 12:52:38 AM  
Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will.
 
2011-05-19 1:15:39 AM  

mamoru: Well, this will either be a very interesting discussion about these organisms and their situations, and the study of biological evolution in general


OK, well I'll start with this sentence from the article:

To make themselves less appealing to their greatest enemies (poachers), elephants all over the world have begun selecting against having tusks at all.

Is this a joke? Because it only seems obvious that elephants that have no tusks have no natural nor man-made predator, therefore survive to continue to propagate the species.

It's natural selection in action: either lady elephants are deliberately choosing tuskless mates, or the only boy elephants surviving into breeding time are the ones born without tusks. Either way, that tusklessness is getting passed on.

Oh. Well...good luck with that religion vs science thing you were mentioning, mamoru.
 
2011-05-19 1:24:29 AM  

jaylectricity: Is this a joke? Because it only seems obvious that elephants that have no tusks have no natural nor man-made predator, therefore survive to continue to propagate the species.


Yeah, but traditionally, males have competed for the affection of those sexy, sexy lady elephants. Not having tusks put one at a major disadvantage. So those lady elephants selecting for tuskless mates represents a huge shift in elephant society.
 
2011-05-19 1:33:55 AM  
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Yeah, but traditionally, males have competed for the affection of those sexy, sexy lady elephants. Not having tusks put one at a major disadvantage. So those lady elephants selecting for tuskless mates represents a huge shift in elephant society.

Indeed. And if, for whatever reason, sexual selection is happening as well as "natural selection" (or artificial, if you want to call it that; that tusked males tend to be killed by poachers, so are selected against), it could help explain such rapid evolution. Sexual selection can carry a "new" or "weird" or even "disadvantageous" (in terms of survival) trait in an unexpected direction very quickly simply because of what one side (usually the ladies) chooses to mate with.

There are interesting hypotheses that human bipedalism may be due, at least in part, to sexual selection.
 
2011-05-19 1:38:16 AM  
And then again, there's this paper from 2002 (well, the abstract, anyway; don't have access to the full paper) suggesting that it is more due to genetic drift during various recent (last few hundred years) population bottlenecks...

They seem to suggest that the numbers taken by poachers isn't enough to account for the tuskless trend in that particular population.

/just what I found on a cursory Google Scholar search to find actual research relating to this
 
2011-05-19 2:03:46 AM  
And, since I'm nerding out a bit, here's one more from 2007that seems to cover more and has studied more populations. Just in case anyone is actually interested in what some easily accessible research says about elephants and tusklessness. ;)
 
2011-05-19 2:48:56 AM  
mamoru: That said, while the examples in the article are very interesting examples of "evolution in action", they are neither surprising nor uncommon

Let's pause for a second to consider that Cracked has a science related list that isn't hyperbolic, doesn't make bogus claims and in short is more worthwhile than a lot of "science" stuff from regular news sources. Yeah, I think I need to lay down for a while myself.
 
2011-05-19 3:00:50 AM  
Mad Magazine is the true messiah!
 
2011-05-19 3:03:27 AM  

WTF Indeed: Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will.


Even God is evolving!

That said, the elephant thing intrigues me most of all.
Elephants are remarkably intelligent, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than "last man on Earth" type scenario.

Peacock tails are a pure hindrance for the peacock's actual life, but the peafowls dig it. I can't understand why this would be different, but I'm sure it's possible for people far smarter than me to understand.
 
2011-05-19 3:04:58 AM  
mamoru, you are much too smart for Fark.

anyhow, part of the problem i see here is that while we can talk like phenotypic drift is the only deciding factor, by doing so we throw out any possible avenues of exploration into the relative consciousness of elephants and their possible ability to trend culturally. if one allows such a potentiality, it is possible to see that there could be a "meme" amongst elephants that remembers (externally to the individual) that humans kill the tuskies.

/i know - unacceptable, impossible theory with nothing to back it up.
 
2011-05-19 3:12:08 AM  
I didn't know that growler bears were fertile. That's pretty farking cool actually.
 
2011-05-19 3:19:55 AM  
SJKebab: I didn't know that growler bears were fertile. That's pretty farking cool actually.

Both polar and grizzly bears have 74 chromosomes, so yeah it works.

/yes bears have more chromosomes than people
 
2011-05-19 3:23:25 AM  
minitrue noram: mamoru, you are much too smart for Fark.

Not at all. I was honestly saying in another thread that Fark has some of the most intelligent, clever, witty, and educated commentary on the internet. Granted, when faced with sites like YouTube, Fox, CNN, or any given news site which has a comment section that gets linked to Fark, the bar isn't set too high. But seriously, there are some incredibly intelligent Farkers around here, far more intelligent than I'll ever be.

/unfortunately, such intelligence is often used for misogyny and poop threads :-/

God-is-a-Taco: Elephants are remarkably intelligent, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than "last man on Earth" type scenario.

Peacock tails are a pure hindrance for the peacock's actual life, but the peafowls dig it. I can't understand why this would be different, but I'm sure it's possible for people far smarter than me to understand.


The thing about sexual selection is that it can be purely arbitrary. Sure, peahens go for the pretty, but that could very well have been "lucky" chance. At the right time, a given peahen could have just as easily preferred better camouflage, and then we wouldn't have the impressive peacock's tale today.

If female elephants arbitrarily choose to mate with tuskless males, and there is a genetic component to making such a choice, then sexual selection could account for it. On the other hand, if they arbitrarily only choose to mate with tusked males, then either tusked males would survive (like the peacock) in the face of a certain disadvantage (being poached in the elephant's case, more visible to predators in the peacock's case), or the population would go extinct.

In a battle between sexual selection and natural selection over a given trait (all else being equal), I put my money on sexual selection every time. Sure, I might lose a few bets, but I'd probably win more than I'd lose.

However, based on the papers I found (haven't finished reading the second one, and need to go teach a class now), sexual selection doesn't seem to be the case with the elephants, but rather a combination of drift in small populations and selection from poaching.
 
2011-05-19 3:24:09 AM  
Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating
 
2011-05-19 3:27:14 AM  

jpawlikowski: Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating


Bevets has to sleep SOME time.
 
2011-05-19 3:34:29 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: jaylectricity: Is this a joke? Because it only seems obvious that elephants that have no tusks have no natural nor man-made predator, therefore survive to continue to propagate the species.

Yeah, but traditionally, males have competed for the affection of those sexy, sexy lady elephants. Not having tusks put one at a major disadvantage. So those lady elephants selecting for tuskless mates represents a huge shift in elephant society.


Do you mean that the geeky elephants are in?
 
2011-05-19 3:52:50 AM  
Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.
 
2011-05-19 4:15:11 AM  

untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.


Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?
 
2011-05-19 4:20:41 AM  

Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?


No, if the lizard grew fully functional wings, opposable thumbs and a top hat then it would be macro evolution.
 
2011-05-19 4:29:44 AM  
untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.
 
2011-05-19 4:30:50 AM  
I thought I remembered that the peppered moth thing was made-up BS, but I can't be bothered to google it.
 
2011-05-19 4:36:06 AM  

WhyteRaven74: untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.


It's evolution, babyyyyy!!!
 
2011-05-19 4:39:39 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: WTF Indeed: Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will.

Even God is evolving!

That said, the elephant thing intrigues me most of all.
Elephants are remarkably intelligent, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than "last man on Earth" type scenario.

Peacock tails are a pure hindrance for the peacock's actual life, but the peafowlshens dig it. I can't understand why this would be different, but I'm sure it's possible for people far smarter than me to understand.


Peafowl refers to both male and female with Peahens being the female of the species.
 
2011-05-19 4:46:16 AM  
TopoGigo: I thought I remembered that the peppered moth thing was made-up BS, but I can't be bothered to google it.

Nope. There were flaws in early studies, which creationists apparently loved to attack, but subsequent observations and experiments have vindicated the initial findings, despite the flaws in the original research.

Now, creationists apparently use it as a micro-/macro- evolution talking point.

Wikipedia has a good overview. And, believe it or not, the biology articles there are usually quite good and full of reference you can check to confirm the information.
 
2011-05-19 4:47:02 AM  

TopoGigo: I thought I remembered that the peppered moth thing was made-up BS, but I can't be bothered to google it.


Glad I'm not the only one with this memory and apathy towards it.
 
2011-05-19 4:47:30 AM  
tankjr: Peafowl refers to both male and female with Peahens being the female of the species.

Are you saying Peacocks can't be gay? NTTAWWT.

;)
 
2011-05-19 4:50:37 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 5:08:58 AM  

mamoru: *sigh*

Well, this will either be a very interesting discussion about these organisms and their situations, and the study of biological evolution in general

-or-

it will be another "religion vs. science" poo-flinging contest where the exact same arguments are re-hashed, the exact same talking points are re-debunked, and basically everything but TFA is discussed.

If I were a betting man...

That said, while the examples in the article are very interesting examples of "evolution in action", they are neither surprising nor uncommon. It would be a real challenge to find any example that wouldn't fit, as evolution* is always in action. I would, however, love to see references to actual studies involving the organisms in TFA, especially genetic studies and such. It would be very interesting to see what genetic changes are happening to cause these changes in phenotype and if there are any pleiotropic effects causing unforeseen side-effects. Among other things.

* 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


I could only wish that we could get a couple actual science threads per day instead of the endless stupid religion vs science arguments we get daily. Seriously, it gets so old. That is why the politics tab exists, for all the farking nimwits to endlessly argue about things that most of us don't care about.
 
2011-05-19 5:09:10 AM  

Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?


When it becomes its own species or another existing species, that's macro-evolution.

WhyteRaven74: untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.


No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.
 
2011-05-19 5:31:54 AM  

untaken_name: Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?

When it becomes its own species or another existing species, that's macro-evolution.

WhyteRaven74: untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.

No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.


Would the grolar bear count as macroevolution then?
 
2011-05-19 5:52:52 AM  
untaken_name: Macroevolution is transition between species

You realize the concept of species is not exactly rigid right? The old definition, doesn't actually hold up. Many animals labeled as separate species are just different populations of the same species. And then you have dogs, which are labeled as domesticated wolves. Which is one of the flimsiest criteria for a species distinction ever. And the consider dogs themselves, look at how much variety there is in dogs, yet they're all the same species. Meanwhile there are numerous bird species where the difference between them is far smaller than the difference between two similar dog breeds. Long story short, your demand makes no sense.
 
2011-05-19 5:54:22 AM  
I haven't really done much gaming lately but all this talk of evolution makes me want to go buy a copy of pokemon black/white.

/Or just wait for grey or whatever that would be called
 
2011-05-19 5:58:36 AM  
cadetstimpy: Would the grolar bear count as macroevolution then?

Seriously, it's not worth it. For people like that poster, there is some magical wall between species. They think it is more than an arbitrary boundary of convenience, which is why there are different species concepts for different types of organisms and different ways of describing the relationships between organisms. Such essentialist thinking has hindered biology forever, and it can't disappear soon enough.

Micro- and Macro- evolution are useful scientific terms as scientists use them, despite that they are both talking about the same thing: evolution. Consider this analogy: I want to measure the growth of a human from infancy to adulthood. How might I measure such things? Well, I could measure "micro" like massing each individual new cell as it forms from cell division. This might be very effective if I'm looking at something small like the development of an organ, the formation of new immune cells, etc. Or, in a different way, on a smaller time scale (rather than size scale), I could measure the person's minute-to-minute mass. I would probably see large fluctuations over the course of a day, with meals and excretions and such. Or, on a "macro" scale, I could measure a person's mass and perhaps height each year. I could then use such data to look at long term trends.

Whether I use the micro-growth measurements or the macro-growth measurements, I'm still measuring the same thing: growth. However, I'm using different measuring styles for different applications of the different data. Day to day micro-growth may be of interest to researchers studying behavior or dietary effects. Year to year macro-growth may be of interest to parents who want to watch little Johnny grow up. But, they are still both different applications of the same thing. And there is no doubt whatsoever that day-to-day micro-growth over a long term results in the trends you see in year to year macro-growth. There is no special divide between them, as they are both just growth. And, you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to insist that the mechanisms seen in micro-growth do not result in macro-growth.

The exact same ideas are true of micro-evolution, macro-evolution, and just plain evolution. They are all about the same thing, but are simply looking at it on different scales, using different tools.

Anyone who insists on saying otherwise merely shows their ignorance of biology, evolution, and what these sciences are actually talking about.
 
2011-05-19 5:58:56 AM  
Dropped into the comments thread for the "Micro- Macro-evolution" stoopitity and there it was! Those creationists are operating from a fixed belief system so will not accept any evidence, no matter how clear or abundant.

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.'"
 
2011-05-19 6:00:52 AM  
mamoru: Such essentialist thinking has hindered people's understanding of biology forever, and it can't disappear soon enough.

FTFM.

Anyone who insists on saying otherwise merely shows their ignorance of biology, evolution, and what these sciences are actually talking about, or is being dishonest in an effort to confuse others to try to "win them over" or something.

Also FTFM.
 
2011-05-19 6:01:47 AM  
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. :)
 
2011-05-19 6:12:08 AM  
WTF Indeed: "Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will."

Then what's this about?
 
2011-05-19 6:15:08 AM  
Steve B. nommus
 
2011-05-19 6:16:58 AM  
Or, from a more authoritative source:

Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution

"An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith."
 
Mef
2011-05-19 6:49:09 AM  

untaken_name:
No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species whatever we have directly observed and can't possibly be denied by a reasonable person. Macroevolution is transition between species reasonable extrapolation using empirical evidence that would be accepted from any other scientific field, so long as it didn't run counter to deeply ingrained religious beliefs. Learn some science.


FTFY
 
2011-05-19 7:17:48 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Even God is evolving!


That statement is truer than you may have intended...

/religions evolve too...
 
2011-05-19 7:19:10 AM  
Man, all the smart people here make my amusement at KKK Polar bear seem stupid and childish.
 
2011-05-19 7:28:07 AM  

WhyteRaven74: You realize the concept of species is not exactly rigid right?


No. When the Ancient Latins codified the species according to the instructions from Zeus, they were infallible. Thus spake Zarathrustra.
 
2011-05-19 7:46:57 AM  
Silly subby... You can't destroy what never existed in the first place. *pffft*
 
2011-05-19 8:05:40 AM  
Actual photo of the conspiracy:
i224.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 8:07:25 AM  

Baryogenesis: Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?

No, if the lizard grew fully functional wings, opposable thumbs and a top hat then it would be macro evolution.


And he has to have a monocle in his eye, and be smoking a cigar.
 
2011-05-19 8:24:36 AM  

mamoru: Wikipedia has a good overview. And, believe it or not, the biology articles there are usually quite good and full of reference you can check to confirm the information.


I find Wikipedia really good for historical and science/technology kind of stuff. The political stuff? Meh. You get what you pay for.

On to the point of the article, though: If you really wanted to preserve megafauna like the Elephant and Polar Bear, we should encourage sport hunting of them. Managed sport hunting tends to result in an increase in populations of the animals in question, not a decrease.

Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.

To that end, the policies of the US Government (not permitting Polar Bear or Elephant trophies into the US) are actually perverse: They reduce the number of people willing to hunt those species, and by doing that they reduce the amount of money spent on things like license fees, which generally go to conservation, and they reduce the amount of money spent in those local areas. When you spend money in Africa or Canada hiring guides, that gives the locals an incentive to maintain that cash flow, and it gives them an incentive to stop people from poaching. You can do that with things like photo safaris either: You can't charge a $750 or $15,000 trophy fee to someone just to take a picture of a polar bear or an elephant. No one in their right mind would pay that.
 
2011-05-19 8:37:53 AM  
no love for cows, dogs, or any other domesticated animals who have changed?
 
2011-05-19 8:49:53 AM  
I can't view the list of these seven animals at work, so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess:

* Nancy Pelosi
* Harry Reid
* Barak Obama
* Elena Kagan
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg
* Mothra
* Janet Napolitano
 
2011-05-19 9:01:24 AM  
For the elephants, I'll be interested to see what happens to their populations when their faced with a hard drought again, such that those tusk-less elephants can no longer dig for water and dehydration becomes a danger.
 
2011-05-19 9:03:21 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: jpawlikowski: Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating

Bevets has to sleep SOME time.


Let's wake him up.

i249.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 9:05:20 AM  

Vast and Trunkless: no love for cows, dogs, or any other domesticated animals who have changed?


There is the occasional love for them, but we only hear about it when someone gets caught.
 
2011-05-19 9:09:24 AM  

dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.


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.
 
2011-05-19 9:14:07 AM  

tankjr: Peafowl refers to both male and female with Peahens being the female of the species.



Peahen, eh?

Somehow I was expecting the female form of the peacock to have a much, much more offensive name.
 
2011-05-19 9:15:36 AM  

BreezyWheeze: dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.

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.


Doesn't sport hunting artificially impact selection by culling the biggest fittest males in their prime? I thought I read something about very large trophy whitetail getting scarce because of this and average point count is way down.
 
2011-05-19 9:17:23 AM  
Usually I like their lists but that one sucked.
 
2011-05-19 9:19:01 AM  

BreezyWheeze: dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.

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.


Spot on. The problem isn't the frustrated Teddy Roosevelts of the World. The tiger isn't in danger of becoming extinct because of Chauncy Uppercrust sitting on a howdah taking potshots at him with his trusty Holland and Holland. The far bigger threat is poachers supplying tiger bits to Chinese apothecaries who sell them to limp-dicked men in China.

To be fair, though, habitat loss is probably a bigger problem than poaching for the tiger. Either way, sport hunting wasn't a significant part of their downfall.
 
2011-05-19 9:19:45 AM  

xanadian: Mike Chewbacca: jpawlikowski: Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating

Bevets has to sleep SOME time.

Let's wake him up.


Nah, don't bother him. Isn't he supposed to be working on another Cohen brothers film or something?
 
2011-05-19 9:26:07 AM  

untaken_name: Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species.


Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

The most common response to this is that these are "not really" speciations, since "it's still the same kind". This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral​-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera​l-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera​l-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.


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.
 
2011-05-19 9:32:44 AM  
Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.
 
2011-05-19 9:37:37 AM  
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.
 
2011-05-19 9:39:51 AM  
The babel fish already proved this, right?
 
2011-05-19 9:40:23 AM  

dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.


And that distinction is false.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not separate events, they are simply different scales of a single type of event, namely evolution.

talkorigins.orgView Full Size


Macroevolution simply refers to any evolutionary events that occur at or above the species level. Microevolution refers to evolutionary events below the species level.

You can't accept that organisms and populations evolve and then claim there is some imaginary 'barrier' that cannot be broken. If different populations of the same species experience different environmental and reproductive pressures over a sufficient period of time, speciation will occur. To claim it won't is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalala!'
 
2011-05-19 9:45:41 AM  

dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.


An easier and better definition that's harder to refute is that creationists have no problem with selection for preexisting genetic potential, but have a problem with the likelihood of significant genetic mutation being beneficial.

In other words, it's no big whoop to breed for smaller tusks, black moths, or lizards with no legs, because those are known existing traits asserting themselves, just like the black moths were always possible, just recessive. If the elephant was evolving, for example, hollow tusks that are ALSO linked to canals for easier drinking, or tusks that move down their trunks to be used as weapons, or ANYTHING that you couldn't at any arbitrary point in the elephant's history hit breed some random elephants until you get that trait.

The problem people have with the mutation theory of evolution is that much of the time, the adaptations don't work in isolation. In other words, an owl needs more than a beak to be a woodpecker, it needs different balance, different sensory organs, shock absorbing spaces, different claws and wings, etc etc, and it needs to have the same mutations happen with enough regularity to establish a breeding population.
 
2011-05-19 9:48:43 AM  
The micro/macro thing here really is a holdover from the early days of biology, where it was assumed that each species was specially created by a creator and perfectly adapted to its role. There was no crossover between species, although naturalists understood that there could be quite a bit of variation within a given species. Current creationists have just continued the thought pattern even when a) creation of new species has been observed experimentally and b) we've realized that the entire concept of a fixed species really falls down when you start talking about things like bacteria that merrily toss their genetic info around.

It's really interesting when you study science history, especially the thinking of naturalists around Darwin's time as they are trying to figure out what's going on since these sorts of questions were really hard to answer. My favorite bit is that they could see invasive species flourish in new environments at the expense of native ones. But they also "knew" that organisms were created perfectly adapted for their environment by God. So how do the "perfectly adapted" creations get outcompeted by the invaders?
 
2011-05-19 9:52:42 AM  

untaken_name: Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?

When it becomes its own species or another existing species, that's macro-evolution.

WhyteRaven74: untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.

No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.


Accepting that changes within a species can eventually lead to new organs within that species, and then claiming that similar changes are incapable of eventually producing an entirely new species is like accepting that walking will get you from your couch to your fridge, and then claiming that walking could never get you from Chicago to New York.
 
2011-05-19 9:57:35 AM  

Brawndo: The babel fish already proved this, right?


babelfish已经证明了此,正确?

Babelfish bewees reeds juist dit?

Das babelfish prüfte bereits dieses, recht?

Το babelfish απέδειξε ήδη αυτό, σωστό;

Le babelfish a déjà prouvé ceci, droit ?

Il babelfish già ha dimostrato questo, di destra?

babelfish は既にこれを、右証明したか。

babelfish는 이미 이것을, 맞았던 증명했는가?

O babelfish já provou este, direito?

Babelfish уже доказало это, право?

¿El babelfish probó ya esto, derecho?
 
2011-05-19 10:00:51 AM  

Jack31081: dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.

And that distinction is false.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not separate events, they are simply different scales of a single type of event, namely evolution.

Macroevolution simply refers to any evolutionary events that occur at or above the species level. Microevolution refers to evolutionary events below the species level.

You can't accept that organisms and populations evolve and then claim there is some imaginary 'barrier' that cannot be broken. If different populations of the same species experience different environmental and reproductive pressures over a sufficient period of time, speciation will occur. To claim it won't is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalala!'


Thanks for the excellent response, but I do have a question or two. And please let me caveat this by saying I'm not a creationist myself, but I do try to understand everyone's facts, theories and viewpoints as best as I can so I can formulate my own world-view.

The question I presume a creationist would put before you is, "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level." The proverbial "missing link" as it were that shows apes evolved to man, or reptiles evolved to birds, etc. (The irony here that is not lost on me is that if you asked a creationist to show that same evidence for the existence of God they would not be able to produce empirical data).

I have no problem with people accepting theories as fact, whether it be the existence of God or Darwin's evolution, I just want to see more cogent arguments made, as you did, by each side, ones that aren't wharblegarbly.
 
2011-05-19 10:16:05 AM  

dennerman: Thanks for the excellent response, but I do have a question or two. And please let me caveat this by saying I'm not a creationist myself, but I do try to understand everyone's facts, theories and viewpoints as best as I can so I can formulate my own world-view.

The question I presume a creationist would put before you is, "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level." The proverbial "missing link" as it were that shows apes evolved to man, or reptiles evolved to birds, etc. (The irony here that is not lost on me is that if you asked a creationist to show that same evidence for the existence of God they would not be able to produce empirical data).

I have no problem with people accepting theories as fact, whether it be the existence of God or Darwin's evolution, I just want to see more cogent arguments made, as you did, by each side, ones that aren't wharblegarbly.


These are the two most readily accessible articles on the subject of observed speciation that I'm aware of:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (new window)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html (new window)

These articles include examples of speciation in plants, insects, mice, fish, etc. both inside labs and in nature.
 
2011-05-19 10:24:35 AM  

dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."


That's like asking to show you the first person who spoke English.
There was no first person. There was no 'break' between one language and the next. Fathers and sons spoke the same language. All we can do is point roughly to a time period where change took place over many generations.

There was no first homo Sapiens who was given birth to by a non-homo Sapiens.
 
2011-05-19 10:27:49 AM  
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 world's biodiversity would be better off if humans self-regulated their population to a sustainable and less-impactful level.

Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.
 
2011-05-19 10:31:02 AM  

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?
 
2011-05-19 10:35:00 AM  
Mr Guy:

Very good explanation of the Creationist viewpoint on micro vs. macro-evolution.

dennerman:

Creationists would cite creationnature itself and its wonderful complexity as empirical evidence of God.

This is why people write them off with the "god didit" meme and incorrectly extend that into claims along the lines of "if God did it, then we're done! No need to do any more science." However, a belief in Creationism does not of necessity remove one's natural inquisitive and desire to understand nature.
 
2011-05-19 10:36:33 AM  
I farked your God. It was okay.
 
2011-05-19 10:43:02 AM  

0Icky0: dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."


I don't think you're asking for a speciation "event" so much as an example of where a population gets new genetic material and passes it along and the descendents of that new material branch off into a new species.

A hypothetical might help here.

Say that a butterfly population has genes for red and blue wing pigmentation. Nothing in the population's genetic makeup supports yellow wings.

One day, a butterfly is born with a mutation that allows for yellow wings. But how does it pass it along? It isn't as hard as you might think. All it has to is breed. Its partner does not need the mutation for yellow wings for the offspring to benefit. Over time, after many generations, we have a bunch of yellow-winged butterflies.
 
2011-05-19 10:45:14 AM  

0Icky0: dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."

That's like asking to show you the first person who spoke English.
There was no first person. There was no 'break' between one language and the next. Fathers and sons spoke the same language. All we can do is point roughly to a time period where change took place over many generations.

There was no first homo Sapiens who was given birth to by a non-homo Sapiens.


It seems you are saying we have to just trust that it happened because we think that it did but no one was documenting it at the time. I could only agree with that statement if it were the case that all species evolution took place before the start of recorded history and probably more specifically of taxonomy. Has there been nothing since then? (I haven't yet clicked on the links Jack31081 just posted but I will).
 
2011-05-19 10:46:18 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: That said, the elephant thing intrigues me most of all.
Elephants are remarkably intelligent, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than "last man on Earth" type scenario.


^THIS.

Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants without tusks increases. NOT evolution.

That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.
 
Ant
2011-05-19 10:49:53 AM  

untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.


Sleep for about a million years.

separation + natural selection + time = speciation
 
2011-05-19 10:52:38 AM  
i29.photobucket.comView Full Size


/Lizard destroying God.
 
2011-05-19 10:54:17 AM  
GilRuiz1: You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?

Yes, the word "hope" is there for effect. You are correct - I certainly don't go around hoping for the deaths of billions of people.

That being said, however, I'm able to separate my emotions from logic: Biodiversity, and the biosphere, would be better off the human population was reduced to, and maintained at, a fraction of it's current value.
 
Ant
2011-05-19 10:55:43 AM  

Minus1Kelvin: God-is-a-Taco: Even God is evolving!

That statement is truer than you may have intended...

/religions evolve too...


...and many have gone extinct
 
2011-05-19 10:59:30 AM  
cchris_39: That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.

And what is incorrect about that? Have the allele frequencies of a population not changed if a significant number of the carriers of certain alleles are wiped out?
 
2011-05-19 11:01:56 AM  
cchris_39: Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants without tusks increases. NOT evolution.

Regardless of the fact that you are ignoring the portion of the article where it points out that the number of tuskless elephants being born has increased in some areas from the historical 3-5% to upwards of 38%, it IS evolution. Evolution doesn't care that the mechanism for natural selection in this case is poachers finding elephants with tusks more attractive.

There is no "humans caused it" exception in the definition of natural selection. Humans are part of nature (even though many humans like to see themselves as outside of nature), and as such, can be a cause of the pressures that drive natural selection.
 
2011-05-19 11:10:14 AM  
abb3w: ...lots of words...

You obviously haven't gotten to the punchline yet.
 
2011-05-19 11:13:30 AM  

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.
 
2011-05-19 11:16:31 AM  
Wow.. very good posts so far

/golf clap
/yay for no Bevets yet.
 
2011-05-19 11:18:38 AM  

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?


....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.
 
2011-05-19 11:19:05 AM  
"And so tuskless elephants, being a dead giveaway of the interference of god, disproved the existance of god, who dissapeared into a puff of logic"

cchris_39: Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants *born* without tusks increases. NOT Evolution!

That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.


ftfy

How Evolution Works.

Species make lots of random variation then the environment kills everything that does not survive the evolutionary pressures which leaves only the organisms selected by evolution. If all people with non-white skin were killed before they could breed then the next generation simply would not have the genes for non-white skin so humanity would have evolved to be white. Thgis means instead of something like 30% (I have no idea of the real value) of babies being white 100% would be white. Are you Richard Dawkins? You understand evolution very well.
 
2011-05-19 11:19:43 AM  

WTF Indeed: Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will.


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


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)
 
2011-05-19 11:21:00 AM  

ninjakirby: 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?

....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.


Well, obviously hoped-for supernatural disasters don't count. Duh. ;)
 
2011-05-19 11:21:58 AM  

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?
 
2011-05-19 11:22:39 AM  

ninjakirby: ....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.



Well, those are them crazy knuckle-dragging, stone-age, religious fools who believe in sky fairies. I was referring to smart, scientific, progressive, enlightened, atheists who have real morality and true values. Those people don't want to see mass epidemics where billions perish, right?
 
2011-05-19 11:23:27 AM  

GilRuiz1: You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?


I do. I don`t mind if I am one of them either. Technically I hope for a man made disaster that kills billions, it has less chance of killing everything else.

Although now you can`t say nobody hopes for it, only a few people.
 
2011-05-19 11:25:36 AM  
Um subby.

ALL living things are conspiring with those atheist scientists to destroy god.

They still haven't gotten over being stuck on an Ark with a very frisky Ham.
 
2011-05-19 11:30:44 AM  
le *sigh* {-- with extra drama queen goodness, for effect* see pic below

Well, this will either be a concern troll in the boobies

-or-

it will be a concern troll pining for the fjords bevets in the boobies


If I were a betting woman...

:D
:D:D
:D:D:D

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


stand back people, give her some air
 
2011-05-19 11:36:17 AM  

GilRuiz1: ninjakirby: ....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.


Well, those are them crazy knuckle-dragging, stone-age, religious fools who believe in sky fairies. I was referring to smart, scientific, progressive, enlightened, atheists who have real morality and true values. Those people don't want to see mass epidemics where billions perish, right?


There was that one nut-case. Discovery channel, you sound butt-hurt, btw.

Though, once again you'd be using categories wrong, while being or not being an atheist I doubt it has much to do with his or her other philosophies that are at cause, as in but for y, for such craziness. Leaving one to question why you'd bother with saying 'athiest' at all and totally left out eco-activist/extremist?
 
2011-05-19 11:42:09 AM  

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


I don't know how that's supposed to work since you just quoted a lib.
 
2011-05-19 11:43:53 AM  

GilRuiz1: Actual photo of the conspiracy:


hmm, i guess we will always have the chewbacca defense

since eventually we are going to figure out that the only people that are falling for concern trolls are other troopers :D

whoops lulz

*shakes angry fist at poe's trooper law*
 
2011-05-19 11:44:08 AM  
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
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.
 
2011-05-19 5:03:34 PM  

I drunk what: because it is actually worth discussing?


Fine. Can you actually articulate what aspect of the Cambrian explosion presents a problem for evolutionary theory? Because you tend to refuse to do this, and just tell people to watch a video.

Or, you know, you could actually just go with the actual linked article, and talk about elephant tusks and lizard placentas. Because that's interesting.
 
2011-05-19 5:06:01 PM  

I drunk what: does mamoru concur with your analysis?


Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?
 
2011-05-19 5:10:30 PM  

cbackous: are you at all capable of making an original thought


are you at all capable of asking an original question?

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark

cbackous: or do you just quote random people


how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?

cbackous: to try and appear educated


who is doing that here?

*reviews mamoru's posts*

ah, i see
 
2011-05-19 5:15:19 PM  

I drunk what: how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?



And what "worthless troll" was he responding with his initial post in this thread?
 
2011-05-19 5:18:19 PM  

guestguy: I drunk what: how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?

And what "worthless troll" was he responding with his initial post in this thread?


going for the easy green trollmitter?
 
2011-05-19 5:20:44 PM  

I drunk what: going for the easy green trollmitter?



If his target was the submitter, then I would think he'd quote the Fark headline and not the actual article title...
 
2011-05-19 5:48:15 PM  

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


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size



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..?


Those categories simply indicate what depth of further sub-speciation divisions have developed. EG: the order carivora results from one species that was successful enough to subdivide in several further species, which in turn subdivided several more times.

s2s2s2: Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human


See back at This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

Infinite Monkey: 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.


Not to mention the development of proto-skeletons (leading to increased rates of fossilization) and directed motility (leading to increased allopatric speciation by access to new environments).
 
2011-05-19 6:01:08 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Or, you know, you could actually just go with the actual linked article, and talk about elephant tusks and lizard placentas.


oh boy, that does sound like a stimulating conversation, i wonder what sort of exchange that topic would produce

*reviews thread*

wow, fascinating

Infinite Monkey: Can you actually articulate what aspect of the Cambrian explosion presents a problem for evolutionary theory?


here's a hint:

veritas-ucsb.orgView Full Size


do you need me to translate-articulate this into words for you? it seems pretty self explanatory

of course the vids did a pretty sufficient job of articulating it into words, so then you want me to re-articulate what has already been articulated?

tell ya what, articulate on why you feel i should re-articulate existing articulations and then we can articulate together the beauty of articulation

Infinite Monkey: and just tell people to watch a video


i know it's so hard, but i figure that even the most special IB member can hack it, since you don't have to bother reading n' stuff, gettn' an edumacation is rough

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: does mamoru concur with your analysis?

Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?


guess again lad

but you're heading down the right path, yes that's it! give in to your hate
 
2011-05-19 6:11:15 PM  

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


Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. This includes vertebrates.
Vertebrates are always vertebrates. This includes tetrapods.
Tetrapods are always tetrapods. This includes mammals.
Mammals are always mammals. This includes primates.
Primates are always primates. This includes apes.
Apes are always apes. This includes humans.

Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?
 
2011-05-19 6:33:17 PM  

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument.
 
2011-05-19 6:34:37 PM  

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because Jesus and magic, that's why.
 
2011-05-19 7:00:33 PM  
dangit, abbey

fark ate my wall of text, and now i have to motivate myself to conjure it up again... >:(

stupid farkin whiskey servers!!!1!
 
2011-05-19 7:17:24 PM  

ryant123: Because Jesus and magic, that's why


DarwiOdrade: if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument


indeed
 
2011-05-19 7:44:41 PM  
anyways here's the shorter and far less elegant version (i'm too tired to retype):

abb3w: Those categories simply indicate what depth of further sub-speciation divisions have developed. EG: the order carivora results from one species that was successful enough to subdivide in several further species, which in turn subdivided several more times.


here's a fun little exercise: suppose i posit a theory of adaptation that says that once phylum (aka "kinds") are created they can adapt and change and even give rise to new flavors (aka "species") and even further into groups called class, order, ec.., a nickname for this phenomena we'll nickname "micro-adaptation"

however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory

do you think you can support his conjecture?

furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life and is too weak of a term, and therefore think that we should start with presumptions, such as things like "life can evolve from dead stuff", etc.. to propose a new theory called evolution

does this sound like a good idea?

abb3w: Infinite Monkey: 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.

Not to mention the development of proto-skeletons (leading to increased rates of fossilization) and directed motility (leading to increased allopatric speciation by access to new environments)


rates of fossilization was addressed in the vid, so like i said before if you would like to address all the details covered and discussed i'd be happy to review a point by point basis of some major problems with the theory

we can even discuss the probabilities of certain events and whether or not it would be reasonable to believe them
 
2011-05-19 7:49:47 PM  

I drunk what: do you need me to translate-articulate this into words for you? it seems pretty self explanatory


Other than the difference between the "data" and "phylum" branches. That's a bit... bizarre?

And the fact that most branches of life that existed in the Cambrian don't exist anymore, so probably less of those should stretch to the top?

Is the graph trying to show that there's been no more "branching" on the phylum order since the Cambrian era? You're talking about a very high order branch. That's like asking why a century-old tree hasn't sprouted any new large branches since the Titanic sank. Trees do not grow that way. The life that exists on the planet, currently, is the leaves on the tips of the small branches that grow from the few remaining original branches life took. The rest of those original branches are dead. New phyla would have to evolve from long-extinct ancient organisms.
 
2011-05-19 8:02:58 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument

indeed


Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?

 
2011-05-19 8:19:05 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.


precisely what is "it" that i am denying?
 
2011-05-19 8:36:48 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?


It's so cute when people on my ignore list try to engage me in conversation. If they were worth discussing anything with, they wouldn't be on my ignore list. But, that is another in a long line of very simple facts that those such as he cannot grasp.

But you've essentially voiced whatever needs to be said about the cambrian "explosion". The only "controversy" is which model of what happened is more accurate: sudden explosion (of say 10My), slow burn explosion (of say 50-100My), or no explosion (more and more genetic evidence is suggesting the possibility that the divisions that we now see all major metazoan phyla happened long before, despite the lack of fossils earlier than the ediacarian fauna). But in no way is any of the particular models a challenge to biological evolution.

OMG STOP THE PRESSES, Science is claiming that it doesn't yet have a model that best fits the available evidence!! (or rather that multiple models do fit the available evidence and it will take more research and observation to rule out the competing models). Ric Romero will be reporting on this strange new phenomenon at 11.

/I'm definitely not the latest, though. He's been on my ignore list for a year or two now.
 
2011-05-19 8:47:24 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.

precisely what is "it" that i am denying?


Looks like you're saying that science can't explain the Cambrian explosion. I'm not saying that current theories are complete, but science is filling in missing pieces all the time.
 
2011-05-19 8:52:24 PM  

mamoru: OMG STOP THE PRESSES, Science is claiming that it doesn't yet have a model that best fits the available evidence!! (or rather that multiple models do fit the available evidence and it will take more research and observation to rule out the competing models). Ric Romero will be reporting on this strange new phenomenon at 11.


I usually love the answer of "I don't know" because it's honest, but, man, I hope this "I don't know" isn't permanent. There's got to be some more undiscovered Burgess Shale-type areas to find. That kind of unimaginably-deep time is fascinating, and it'd be good to know more about it.

I kinda like thinking of the current world as it might be seen from a half billion years in the future. Like, if all that was left of our biosphere is an imprint of some unfortunate chihuahua in some ancient stone. Both funny and sad.
 
2011-05-19 8:54:17 PM  

Firefly4F4: untaken_name: No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.

Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. This includes vertebrates.
Vertebrates are always vertebrates. This includes tetrapods.
Tetrapods are always tetrapods. This includes mammals.
Mammals are always mammals. This includes primates.
Primates are always primates. This includes apes.
Apes are always apes. This includes humans.

Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because what the Ancient Latins were handed down from Zeus is good enough for me. Sic semper tyrannis, and all.
 
2011-05-19 9:09:25 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Looks like you're saying that science can't explain the Cambrian explosion.


feel free to use the quote button, that way we can all see

DarwiOdrade: I'm not saying that current theories are complete, but science is filling in missing pieces all the time.


this implies that i said, that you were saying or implying this?

are we looking at the same fark?

mamoru: It's so cute when people on my ignore list try to engage me in conversation


not half as cute as worthless trolls who think that people on their ignore list who are using them as an example of the weapons grade stupidity that is not worth the time and effort are trying to engage them in conversation

for those of you keeping score at home this is a classic example of when the idiot brigade cannot discern the difference of when someone is making an example out of them and when someone falls for their idiotic trolls and "attempts to engage them in conversation"

tl;dr

he wouldn't be able to figure out that i'm not conversing with him if the entire fark collective tried to explain it to him, complete with small words and pictures

/he's so cute
//lulz :D
:D:D
:D:D:D
 
2011-05-19 9:18:04 PM  

"mamoru": "But" "you've" "essentially" "voiced" "whatever" "needs" "to" "be" "said" "about" the cambrian "explosion". The only "controversy" "is" "which" "model" "of" "what" "happened" "is" "more" "accurate": "sudden" "explosion" ("of" "say" "10My"), "slow" "burn" "explosion" ("of" "say" "50-100My"), "or" "no" "explosion" ("more" "and" "more" "genetic" "evidence" "is" "suggesting" "the" "possibility" "that" "the" "divisions" "that" "we" "now" "see" "all" "major" "metazoan" "phyla" "happened" "long" "before", "despite" "the" "lack" "of" "fossils" "earlier" "than" "the" "ediacarian" "fauna"). "But" "in" "no" "way" "is" "any" "of" "the" "particular" "models" "a" "challenge" "to" "biological" "evolution".


wow, well he's got me there, can't argue with that

lulz
 
2011-05-19 9:24:49 PM  

mamoru: But in no way is any of the particular models a challenge to biological evolution.


ok IM, here's your chance to lap trolloru in the IQ race, is that what i was saying?

again use the pic for a hint:

is the title of the graph "BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION vs. THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE" ?
 
2011-05-19 9:31:14 PM  

I drunk what: not half as cute as worthless trolls who think that people on their ignore list who are using them as an example of the weapons grade stupidity that is not worth the time and effort are trying to engage them in conversation

for those of you keeping score at home this is a classic example of when the idiot brigade cannot discern the difference of when someone is making an example out of them and when someone falls for their idiotic trolls and "attempts to engage them in conversation"

tl;dr

he wouldn't be able to figure out that i'm not conversing with him if the entire fark collective tried to explain it to him, complete with small words and pictures

/he's so cute
//lulz :D
:D:D
:D:D:D


I drunk what: wow, well he's got me there, can't argue with that

lulz


I drunk what: ok IM, here's your chance to lap trolloru in the IQ race, is that what i was saying?

again use the pic for a hint:

is the title of the graph "BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION vs. THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE" ?



Haha, wow. This guy really got under your skin, huh? Do you have a link to the thread where he snapped the needle off your hate gauge? I'm intrigued.
 
2011-05-19 9:39:12 PM  

I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory


mamoru: despite the lack of fossils


his cuteness multiplies with delicious irony

don't worry lad, who needs evidence when you have faith?

---

..and one day while i was walkingeth in the woods, i was visited by the angel morani and he did sayeth unto me, hearken

morani: more and more genetic evidence is suggesting the possibility that the divisions that we now see all major metazoan phyla happened long before

, and he assured me that i need not seek out evidence for it haveth been delievered unto me by divine revelation..

IB Chronicles 4:17

---

IM for the love of lulz, please get him to keep talking

/i beseech thee
 
2011-05-19 9:48:22 PM  

guestguy: This guy really got under your skin, huh?


who IM? he's a little slow, but i actually kinda like him
 
2011-05-19 9:50:04 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.


Except the dogs learning to ride the subway, the skinks developing live birth, and of course, the birth of grolar bears. But don't let that stop you, you're on a roll.
 
2011-05-19 10:00:37 PM  

I drunk what: who IM?


i296.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 10:07:11 PM  

guestguy: Do you have a link to the thread where he snapped the needle off your hate gauge? I'm intrigued


Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?

or are you asking for a thread where he convinced me that he is a completely worthless troll?

because you can probably just pick any thread he posts in...? have you read his quality work in this thread?

i'm actually going quite easy on him or else i could just respond to all his posts, but i think just a handful should cover it

this is simply just some troll-spray being applied to the thread, that's all, try not to read too much into it

he's not the first IB-Troll that has faced the wrath of IDW

/prolly won't be the last

btw the only thing i hate is stupidity

//and i don't particularly enjoy the trolling
 
2011-05-19 10:13:10 PM  

guestguy: I drunk what: who IM?


[thatlook]

hey don't give me that look Mr.

you said "getting under my skin", and of the two in that quote, IM gets under my skin (which isn't much) more than any worthless troll ever would (which is zero), so be careful how you phrase stuff around me, words have meaning
 
2011-05-19 10:28:26 PM  
cbackous:

are you at all capable of making an original thought, or do you just quote random people to try and appear educated?

I drunk what:

are you at all capable of asking an original question?

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

Bevets:

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

I drunk what:

quick, throw up a smokescreen and talk how stuff changes and pretend like that is what the debate is about

NOTES FROM THE ATHEIST PLAYBOOK:

1) If time is short skip to step 11

2) Assume 'Science' and 'Atheism' are interchangeable (but ONLY use the first word).

3) Assume 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution' are interchangeable (which means drop the 'micro' and the 'macro').

4) When asked for clarification, ignore the request.

5) If step 4 does not work, ignore the request.

6) If step 5 does not work, return to step 4

7) Deny it

8) Pretend to miss the point

9) Buffalo

10) Seem sincere

11) Ad Hominem, Smear, Poison the Well

12) Smear, Ad Hominem, Poison the Well

13) Poison the Well, Ad Hominem (and smear)
 
2011-05-19 10:28:40 PM  

I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory


Then you're not understanding what evolution says; to wit, that these core phyla are in turn subdivisions from even earlier groups of organisms, which make for "kingdoms".

I drunk what: furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life


Largely, those who aren't paying attention to the evidence of common descent even at the phylum level.

I drunk what: rates of fossilization was addressed in the vid


Rates, or frequency?

Either way, you don't have enough credibility left with me to get me to spend the time watching a vid of your suggestion. Feel free to find someone else that I still take seriously who's willing to co-endorse its worth.
 
2011-05-19 10:34:41 PM  

I drunk what: Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?



I looked over the linked thread...are you saying that you became convinced he was nothing but a troll when you discovered that he had placed you on ignore? I may be wrong, but I don't think that's how "trolling" works...

I drunk what: btw the only thing i hate is stupidity



img.fark.net

What are you, a masochist or something?
 
2011-05-19 10:53:54 PM  

Bevets: NOTES FROM THE ANTI-THEIST PLAYBOOK


ftfy

we call them IB for short

guestguy: are you saying that you became convinced he was nothing but a troll when you discovered that he had placed you on ignore?


look dude it would take too long to explain the full back story, but you'll just have to trust me on this, i don't lie

/and i am fully aware of what a troll is (thanks for your concern)

abb3w: I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory

Then you're not understanding what evolution says; to wit, that these core phyla are in turn subdivisions from even earlier groups of organisms, which make for "kingdoms".

I drunk what: furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life

Largely, those who aren't paying attention to the evidence of common descent even at the phylum level.


oh abbey, this is why i don't like to pretend to care about all these details :( because then you'll just make me write a dissertation on it and overhaul the entire field of biology as we know it

just like you expect me to rewrite all the mathematical laws and theorems everytime we play a little math game, on my coffee break

i enjoy our little food for thoughts however i'm afraid i just wont get into the deep waters like you and kerpy and like kilted tries to do and floyda pretends he can do

frankly i just have my own set of priorities, cups of tea, boats to float

abb3w: Rates, or frequency?


probably both, can't remember off the top of my head

abb3w: Either way, you don't have enough credibility left with me to get me to spend the time watching a vid of your suggestion


hey don't type angry :(

abb3w: Feel free to find someone else that I still take seriously who's willing to co-endorse its worth


oh and just who might that be?

i really don't like this new game we're playing, the rules blow
 
2011-05-19 10:57:00 PM  
NOTES FROM THE CATHOLIC PLAYBOOK:

1) God says so.

2) If you disagree, you will burn in HELL.

3) Return to step 2.
 
2011-05-19 10:58:08 PM  

guestguy: What are you, a masochist or something?


well i do still talk to abbey

/i think someone peed in his cheerios
//don't tell him i said that
 
2011-05-19 11:26:23 PM  

I drunk what: look dude it would take too long to explain the full back story



Fair enough, though I struggle to see how any backstory could justify someone putting you on ignore as the epiphanous troll moment.

I drunk what: but you'll just have to trust me on this, i don't lie



How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?
 
2011-05-20 12:40:56 AM  

abb3w: See back at This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.


And no, I don't mean what you think I mean by that.
 
2011-05-20 1:06:39 AM  

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


It's like the old adage, "Never trust a man who says 'trust me.'"
 
2011-05-20 1:15:06 AM  

Bevets: 9) Buffalo


i268.photobucket.comView Full Size

You called?
 
2011-05-20 1:43:53 AM  

Bevets: cbackous:

are you at all capable of making an original thought, or do you just quote random people to try and appear educated?

I drunk what:

are you at all capable of asking an original question?

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

Bevets:

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

I drunk what:

quick, throw up a smokescreen and talk how stuff changes and pretend like that is what the debate is about

NOTES FROM THE ATHEIST PLAYBOOK:

1) If time is short skip to step 11

2) Assume 'Science' and 'Atheism' are interchangeable (but ONLY use the first word).

3) Assume 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution' are interchangeable (which means drop the 'micro' and the 'macro').

4) When asked for clarification, ignore the request.

5) If step 4 does not work, ignore the request.

6) If step 5 does not work, return to step 4

7) Deny it

8) Pretend to miss the point

9) Buffalo

10) Seem sincere

11) Ad Hominem, Smear, Poison the Well

12) Smear, Ad Hominem, Poison the Well

13) Poison the Well, Ad Hominem (and smear)


Theist play book.

1) It's the sky wizard I was told to believe in.
2) ???
3) Profit
 
2011-05-20 1:47:41 AM  

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


I drunk what (ignored: Retarded and High Theist)

He's constantly posting multiple times in a row, reads poorly, and comes out of far left field.

He makes bevets look sane, and the Rapture people.
 
2011-05-20 2:33:45 AM  
As an Anthropology major, I'm getting a huge kick out of many of your "arguments."
 
2011-05-20 7:49:53 AM  

Bevets: ~ Stephen Jay Gould


Stephen Jay Gould was an evolutionary biologist who postulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a theory which replaced Darwin's theory of slow, gradual evolution. If you see a Bevets quote where Gould is supposedly critical of Darwin, it will be on this theory. Neither Gould's theory nor the discredited Darwin theory do anything to advance intelligent design/creationism as a credible theory. It is the evolutionary equivalent of the difference between a slope and stairs, while Bevets is arguing it's impossible to go up.
 
2011-05-20 7:54:09 AM  

Bevets: ~ Paul Nelson


Paul Nelson is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to disproving evolution and promoting creationism (which they will not call it under any circumstances, preferring intelligent design). He has a PhD in philosophy, with little or no training in biology. He has also been interviewed as admitting there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, meaning that the Institute is drawing their conclusions first, then using data to match it, which is the opposite of what the scientific method advises.
 
2011-05-20 10:05:27 AM  

I drunk what: Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?


That was an interesting thread, to be sure.


Bevets: If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor.


I imagine evolutionists would accept that there may have been multiple events where "life happened", some of which failed, and others of which succeeded. As such, the odds are that there isn't a single organism from which all life sprang, but possibly multiple organisms.
 
2011-05-20 11:18:33 AM  

mgshamster: It's like the old adage, "Never trust a man who says 'trust me.


then don't trust me, i'm really quite mad

/starts to disappear

omeganuepsilon: He's constantly posting multiple times in a row, reads poorly, and comes out of far left field.

He makes bevets look sane, and the Rapture people


you can implicitly trust omega because he is an anonymous stranger on an internet message board

guestguy: Fair enough, though I struggle to see how any backstory could justify someone putting you on ignore as the epiphanous troll moment.


i understand, i can also perfectly understand why if i provided you with 3 other threads, that you would somehow come to the conclusion that i cannot grasp basic logic

some of these threads can get a little tricky

many conversations here have been going on for many years, you can rarely just read one thread to get the full story...

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


oh, don't take my word for it, would you like a 2nd opinion?

/of course you are free to go back and review as many threads as you deem fit
 
2011-05-20 11:43:55 AM  

AfroSpatula: i drank what


oh boy this ought to be good

/i love the formal approach

AfroSpatula: You seem revolutionary in your field of study.


my 'field of study'? i don't follow

AfroSpatula: I couldn't watch the video you posted


are you talking about conversations in this thread or other ones? because you will have to specify which

btw can you simply state the title of the video so that i can know if we are speaking about the same thing?

AfroSpatula: (my computer doesn't have audio and I fear I wouldn't glean much)


you poor guy, we should take up a collection so that you can experience the wonderful world of sound

so then you are only able to experience the internet in visual form? :(

/the horrah

AfroSpatula: as you've expressed consternation over reciting your perfectly salient points.


they aren't my points, i tend to reserve my arguments that involve less speculation, but i humor some old friends here to keep the conversation from becoming a monologue

AfroSpatula: I'm curious about this whole field, this iconoclastic approach


that makes two of us, i'd really like to hear more about this iconoclastic field of mine? i'm intrigued

AfroSpatula: Mind you, I looked at the links supplied by your opponent(?) mamoru


LOL, oh heavens no

i never argue with worthless trolls, knowingly that is :/

try again lad

AfroSpatula: and I'm grateful that he showed interest in sharing things he thought interesting.


unfortunately you probably wouldn't be grateful for me sharing things i think is interesting, since i only really argue things like religion, morality, etc... here

the only reason why i even remotely get involved in these evolution vs creation threads is because most of the people who post in these threads don't even know what science or religion is or how to use them

i'm just trying to bump up the IQ of this forum from the sidelines, though i must say, it appears i haven't been very successful... :(

are you just trying to bum me out?

AfroSpatula: I was hoping you'd express a similar show of curiosity


i'm curious on how far you're willing to go with this

/sounds like fun
 
2011-05-20 11:49:18 AM  

I drunk what: oh abbey, this is why i don't like to pretend to care about all these details :( because then you'll just make me write a dissertation on it and overhaul the entire field of biology as we know it


So, you don't like details, therefore you're right. Riiight.

Of course, you still won't actually specifically SAY what arguments you have with evolution, preferring to vaguely point in the general direction of where those arguments might be found. Makes it convenient when counterarguments are made.

"Oh, dear me, no, that's not what I was trying to say. That's just plain silly. La la la. Why don't you look a little harder in that direction to figure out the REAL arguments I'm making against evolution?"

Do you have anything of substance to contribute here?

Explain your position that the Cambrian explosion presents problems for evolution. Seriously, do it. Or any other argument against it, if you're finally going to abandon that. Go ahead. If you're really the guy who could overhaul the entire field of biology, get on it. Your Nobel Prize is waiting.

Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2011-05-20 11:53:37 AM  

Moonfisher: As an Anthropology major, I'm getting a huge kick out of many of your "arguments."


which ones? use the quote button!

Feepit: That was an interesting thread, to be sure.


i do enjoy them more once they get going, lately it's been more like pulling teeth in a old folks home
 
2011-05-20 12:07:29 PM  

Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details


i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either

but if you'd rather just hear what you want to hear, trolloru's kool aid probably tastes delicious, since i'm sure he is very concerned about protecting you

/also i hear his farts smell divine
 
2011-05-20 12:12:18 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Do you have anything of substance to contribute here?


you mean like cracked.com articles that state that dogs learning to ride trains is proof of evolution which therefore allows trollmitter to conclude that God does not exist

which then opens the flood gates for the Idiot Brigade to assemble for yet another circle jerk of how they once again defeated the magical sky wizard of them knuckle-dragging creationists...?

that kind of "substance" ?

or perhaps i should just review your posts in this thread and attempt to match the quality therein?

i'm easy-game
 
2011-05-20 12:18:59 PM  

I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details

i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either


I don't know what's been going on in this thread, I just came in because of the fark notification of my name appearing. I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist. I'm just willing to accept Deism as being the more probable of various Theistic positions.
 
2011-05-20 12:21:17 PM  

Infinite Monkey: therefore you're right. Riiight.

Of course, you still won't actually specifically SAY what arguments you have with evolution, preferring to vaguely point in the general direction of where those arguments might be found. Makes it convenient when counterarguments are made.

"Oh, dear me, no, that's not what I was trying to say. That's just plain silly. La la la. Why don't you look a little harder in that direction to figure out the REAL arguments I'm making against evolution?"


that's it, give in to your hate, come to the darkside

needs more "willful ignorance, intellectually disingenuous temptation to put on ignore"
 
2011-05-20 12:24:52 PM  

entropic_existence: I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details

i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either

I don't know what's been going on in this thread, I just came in because of the fark notification of my name appearing. I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist. I'm just willing to accept Deism as being the more probable of various Theistic positions.


dude you have got to be more clear about your stance, i coulda swore you said that before...? whateva

so you wanna endorse a video for me so abbey will watch it and discuss what problems might be contained in it?

did i already ask you this before? this sounds familiar
 
2011-05-20 12:26:39 PM  

entropic_existence: I don't know what's been going on in this thread


i'll give you 3 guesses but the first 2 don't count

/you're not missing anything
 
2011-05-20 12:32:01 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.


Do any of them?
 
2011-05-20 12:33:33 PM  

Feepit: I imagine evolutionists would accept that there may have been multiple events where "life happened", some of which failed, and others of which succeeded. As such, the odds are that there isn't a single organism from which all life sprang, but possibly multiple organisms.


Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.
 
2011-05-20 12:40:48 PM  

ninjakirby: Infinite Monkey: Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do any of them?


2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


not a single one

not even a clue

/but you're not helping Leon nk
//why is that?
 
2011-05-20 1:35:50 PM  

I drunk what: so you wanna endorse a video for me so abbey will watch it and discuss what problems might be contained in it?


Endorse what video? You probably did, I probably said no. I'm not a fan of watching youtube videos on these topics. Especially anti-evolution ones. I'm likely to just start getting angry at all of the mistakes, misconceptions, and outright lies contained within it. At least with a text document it is easier for me to quickly scan and parse and focus attention on specific problems that I can quote and correct.

KiltedBastich: Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.


That Eukaryotes group closer to Archea than to Bacteria on the "three-domain" tree isn't really contentious, or new. That's been standard for quite awhile now. The current argument is whether Eukaryotes emerge from within the Archea, making the Archea polyphyletic and not a monophyletic group. Archea have a different membrane system than the Eubacteria and Eukaryotes which is the real issue, but the information processing genes are more similar between Eukaryotes and Archea. Other then their membrane system and having a propensity to be extremophiles the Archea aren't that weird evolutionarily. And way too similar in most ways to be a truly novel and unique "origin of life". Unique origin of their membranes/cell structure? Maybe.
 
2011-05-20 1:49:28 PM  

entropic_existence: Endorse what video?


one of very few (new window) (that i'm aware of) that i'd even bother to defend, if some atheists want to have a discussion with theists about a little thing we call biology

/there is 7 parts try to get through all of them
//feel free to skip lengthy intros, eyecandy, etc..

and if you really like that one i think there was another (new window) i recall being filled with interesting topics of discussion

/12 parts

entropic_existence: I'm likely to just start getting angry at all of the mistakes, misconceptions, and outright lies contained within it.


well just don't type angry, and that would be exactly what i'd expect you to do

by all means debunk the whole thing, feel free to call out any shenanigans you spot and feel the need to correct

we can't have lies being spread around to the masses now can we?

entropic_existence: Especially anti-evolution ones.


scubaboard.comView Full Size


try not to be too biased, until at least AFTER you've seen it

/prejudice doesn't suit you
 
2011-05-20 1:53:43 PM  
Atheist idiots need a brigade. I drunk what is his own solitary idiot. Be the island, man!
 
2011-05-20 1:55:31 PM  

entropic_existence: At least with a text document it is easier for me to quickly scan and parse and focus attention on specific problems that I can quote and correct


man you guys sure love some text don't ya?

i've looked before to see if there are some transcripts available but as of yet i haven't been able to locate any

i'd love to transcribe them for you, however you probably cannot afford me
 
2011-05-20 2:11:46 PM  

Farker Soze: Be the island, man


mom-santa claus island?

Farker Soze: Atheist idiots need a brigade


resistance is futile
 
2011-05-20 2:16:02 PM  

I drunk what: try not to be too biased, until at least AFTER you've seen it


You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new. It isn't going to be an argument "against evolution" that I haven't seen, in some way, shape or form, repeatedly over the last 10 years or so of my life. It isn't biased to say "I don't want to waste my time watching 7 videos that just reiterate things I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"

I drunk what: man you guys sure love some text don't ya?


Text and images are two of the most effective means of conveying information in an accurate way. Recorded speech on the other hand? Not so much. It's also easier to read a document over a long period of time when I have a second here and there, versus watching a video.

That and I read all day as it is. Remember I am engrossed in doing science. I write articles, I read articles, the publication IS how you formalize your arguments because it is efficient and effective.
 
2011-05-20 2:18:19 PM  
btw e_e while we're chatting

would you say that this (new window) is an accurate illustration of your view?

http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/tree_of_evolution.jpg
 
2011-05-20 2:29:26 PM  

entropic_existence: You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new.


you know this before you see them?

quick tell me what my winning lotto numbers are! :P

entropic_existence: I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"


i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

but by all means feel free to rip it apart

that is one of my favorite past times

dreager1.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-20 3:07:57 PM  

entropic_existence: KiltedBastich: Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.

That Eukaryotes group closer to Archea than to Bacteria on the "three-domain" tree isn't really contentious, or new. That's been standard for quite awhile now. The current argument is whether Eukaryotes emerge from within the Archea, making the Archea polyphyletic and not a monophyletic group. Archea have a different membrane system than the Eubacteria and Eukaryotes which is the real issue, but the information processing genes are more similar between Eukaryotes and Archea. Other then their membrane system and having a propensity to be extremophiles the Archea aren't that weird evolutionarily. And way too similar in most ways to be a truly novel and unique "origin of life". Unique origin of their membranes/cell structure? Maybe.


Is this based on current-day eukaryotes or do we have fossils of those? Because it strikes me that such mundane organisms as the "first lifes" would likely have been able to share genetic material amongst themselves, like how cells have mitochondria, and even though they sprung up in different times and places their descendants would have similarities.
 
2011-05-20 3:19:43 PM  

I drunk what: you know this before you see them?


I haven't seen a fundamentally new anti-evolution argument in a looooong time. I click on your link and it appears to be all about the Cambrian explosion. I can surmise that it is as full of misunderstandings about what the Cambrian explosion actually WAS as any other argument I have seen concerning it.

One of the major issues is their arguments and data tend to be woefully out of date and don't include much in terms of fossils discovered in the last 5-10 years. Hell it's important just to keep in mind that the "explosion" occurred over a 35-40 million year timespan. Not exactly overnight delivery.

If Iw ant to learn about the Cambrian explosion I would tend to start here:

PubMed: Cambrian Explosion
 
2011-05-20 3:22:54 PM  

Feepit: Is this based on current-day eukaryotes or do we have fossils of those? Because it strikes me that such mundane organisms as the "first lifes" would likely have been able to share genetic material amongst themselves, like how cells have mitochondria, and even though they sprung up in different times and places their descendants would have similarities.


This is based on genetic data from a wide variety of living organisms. Keep in mind that modern phylogenetic techniques are a bit like forensics in some ways. By looking at diverse organisms and comparing their gene sequences in the context of an evolutionary tree we see both what their current state is, and an inferred record of past events.

And even today what we call lateral gene transfer happens. It's very prevalent among Bacteria and Archea, but it also happens in Eukaryotes. Organisms do end up acquiring genes from other organisms and have them get incorporated into their genomes. Which is awesome. We think that this was very rampant early in evolution because most of the molecular mechanisms that make this harder just didn't exist yet.
 
2011-05-20 3:23:11 PM  

I drunk what: entropic_existence: You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new.

you know this before you see them?

quick tell me what my winning lotto numbers are! :P

entropic_existence: I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"

i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

but by all means feel free to rip it apart

that is one of my favorite past times


I don't know the lotto numbers but I am more than willing to take you up on a rather large bet that he's both heard them before and they have been debunked.

I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?


Seriously. I doubt that. Try again, spend some actual time researching and looking, if you can't find a debunk for the video then you can always find one for the claims it makes. Or better yet, understanding the actual science first (whether it be biology, cladistics, paleontology, geology, genetics etc. at least a decent foundation in all of those), instead of a known, well established, pseudo sciences (creationism) presentation of 'science.'
 
2011-05-20 3:36:44 PM  

entropic_existence: I haven't seen a fundamentally new anti-evolution argument


dude maybe you should just stop talking about it until you've seen it

/people can see what you post
 
2011-05-20 3:39:26 PM  

I drunk what: btw e_e while we're chatting

would you say that this (new window) is an accurate illustration of your view?

http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/tree_of_evolution.jpg


entropic_existence: And even today what we call lateral gene transfer happens


IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring.
 
2011-05-20 3:41:10 PM  

I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?


People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others. Including me. You dismiss all explanation.
 
2011-05-20 3:49:35 PM  
Well, it's nice to see that i drunk what continues to live down to my note on him of "willfully ignorant, intellectually disingenuous, and snide, crazier than a shiathouse rat".
 
2011-05-20 4:05:43 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others. Including me. You dismiss all explanation.


They think that's a valid technique because it's what they think that people do to religion.(Miss application of "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander?)

However...
Religion =/= Explanation.

Why =/= How

Religion and Why tend to lean to intent. Explanation and How tend to lean on evidence, cause and effect, the mechanics of operations.

While these things aren't necessarily exclusive of each other all of the time, they are most of the time in a science related dicussion.

But some of the religious mouth breathers can't(or refuse to) separate the concepts of why and how, and treat them as interchangeable.

One of the core reasons they tend to fail so hard in such discussions.

Real intelligence comes from asking how(and genuinely wanting an answer). That's why ICP and their wonder at magnets is not representative of intelligent curiosity, but prefer to wallow in ignorance, because wonder feels cool.

Real knowledge ruins that euphoric experience religion junkies love. Modern magicians' tricks for example, the unwahsed masses' love for the trick is lost as soon as the trick is explained. That trick is now boring and mundane.

*shrugs*
 
2011-05-20 4:09:09 PM  

I drunk what: needs more "willful ignorance, intellectually disingenuous temptation to put on ignore"


Garbonzo42: Well, it's nice to see that i drunk what continues to live down to my note on him of "willfully ignorant, intellectually disingenuous, and snide, crazier than a shiathouse rat".


tempting you to place me on ignore, i'm sure

/dance for me puppet

Infinite Monkey: People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others.


which is interesting since you are the only one claiming to have seen it thus far...

who are these people you speak of?

Infinite Monkey: You dismiss all explanation


can you remind me of your explanation perhaps i didn't notice it?

feel free to quote which part of the vids you are responding to, which parts are incorrect and why

for example, you could say: In video (part 4) at time 2:34 the speaker claims X, which is not true because of [citation]

or something to that effect

or if you want to be lazy about it like e_e

AFTER you watch the video, you can say: everything in that video is wrong, i don't care to go over any details about it, so here's some stuff to read (133 artilcles); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cambrian%20explosion, even though many of these articles may or may not even actually address the points brought up, you can figure it out yourself

perhaps he will at least indicate which articles he feels is the most pertinent?
 
2011-05-20 4:20:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: (Miss application of "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander")


FTFM
 
2011-05-20 4:40:51 PM  

I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others.

which is interesting since you are the only one claiming to have seen it thus far...

who are these people you speak of?


abb3w: Infinite Monkey: 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.

Not to mention the development of proto-skeletons (leading to increased rates of fossilization) and directed motility (leading to increased allopatric speciation by access to new environments).


I drunk what: for example, you could say: In video (part 4) at time 2:34 the speaker claims X, which is not true because of [citation]


I did that for a related video, segment by segment, in an earlier thread. I see no need to re-watch this one, yet again. Life is short.

AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.
 
2011-05-20 4:49:51 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.


He most emphatically does NOT understand what he is talking about.
 
2011-05-20 4:50:28 PM  
I still don't understand why so many of you are still willing to argue with idw. He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

He's not a troll, he just isn't smart enough to understand he isn't smart enough.
 
2011-05-20 4:56:31 PM  

Garbonzo42: He most emphatically does NOT understand what he is talking about.


Seconded.

KiltedBastich: I still don't understand why so many of you are still willing to argue with idw. He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

He's not a troll, he just isn't smart enough to understand he isn't smart enough.


My bad, thirded then..
 
2011-05-20 6:09:13 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I did that for a related video, segment by segment, in an earlier thread.


is that the one where you picked the least relevant video of the three (the one talking about cosmic stuff) on purpose and then pretended that it was the main material i was positing for discussion about evolution?

maybe you should try that again in this thread and see if they fall for it, they are pretty dumb

*yawn*

of course in this thread you'll have to pretend that i posted a third one, that way you can create the illusion

just be sure to cover your tracks, everything you post is recorded for people to review at their own leisure

just fill each post with lots of drama, it will keep them running around in circles, they'll never suspect a thing

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-20 6:25:59 PM  

Feepit: IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring


sorry had trouble seeing your post with all the derp

i think e_e can answer for himself, but i appreciate your feedback as well

so then do you have a graphic that does accurately represent your view? (just for kicks)

Infinite Monkey: I see no need to re-watch this one, yet again.


i told you to re-watch it? if you've already watched it why would you need to watch it again? just simply point out the stuff that bothers you and why, then we can have a nice little discussion of the different views of biology, it's that simple

sometimes you try too hard and i think you strain or pull something in the process, perhaps you should do some stretching before you read each post?

Infinite Monkey: AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do


i wonder how long it will take him to figure out that i have no argument against evolution, i suppose i could tell him the answer but it probably won't help, to be honest i'm curious to see what he will post next

drjeffcornwall.comView Full Size


for SCIENCE!!
 
2011-05-20 6:35:33 PM  

Feepit: so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring


so then it would be like an old school view of evolution? like darwinian vs neodarwin?

btw do you know anything about the classifications being all screwed up or something, i recently caught some blurb about how traditionally life is classified Domain -} Kingdom -} Phylum -} ... Species, but modern views and evidence point more towards a upside down version of Species -} Genus -} Family -} Order... Domain

or something like that? any thoughts e_e?
 
2011-05-20 7:11:26 PM  

I drunk what: just fill each post with lots of drama


Yes, you do that quite well, Mr. 3 page wall of text.
 
2011-05-20 11:16:46 PM  
Retard Brigade in Full Effect
 
2011-05-21 11:04:10 AM  

abb3w: Then you're not understanding what evolution says; to wit, that these core phyla are in turn subdivisions from even earlier groups of organisms, which make for "kingdoms".


kingdoms were already covered under, the general topics of on this day plants were created, and on that day animals

but if i had to make a guess as to what was being referred to as "kinds" i suppose Phyla would be a healthy start.

even if bacteria was revealed, goat herders probably wouldn't have been able to process or convey such thoughts, and would probably lump them under creepy crawly things or something

so instead of just beating around the bush for another year or two, i'm just going to go ahead and propose some theories for either side to play with and see who can discuss what

in the mean time you guys should review any of their stuff, and i'd be happy to discuss any thoughts you have about them

Link (new window)

for now i will defend their point of views

and if e_e feels up to it, i may even develop a little theory of my own, and boost his career about 20-30 years into the future

as for happycatsigma's latest request for evidential proof of Christianity, i'll be happy to review any probability hypotheses that you submit to him and that he fully endorses and then forwards to me

since i always honor any old friend's request to removed from the auto-green club

fun while it lasted, eh lad?

good luck
 
2011-05-21 3:19:09 PM  

entropic_existence: I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist.


I think he was getting you mixed up with KiltedBastich. It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade. Even using the "note" feature to keep a thumbnail personality sketch as well only helps just so much.

KiltedBastich: He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.


While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.
 
2011-05-21 3:39:47 PM  

abb3w: KiltedBastich: He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.


That would require a willingness on his part to learn and change. It's a widely accepted theory in the psychology of education that without a willing participant, any attempt at education is almost completely pointless. You can't teach someone who does not want to learn.

As for the attitude-bolstering responses, he's yet to ever present anything that isn't an already-commonplace talking point, and usually he doesn't even understand those. It's basically the same problem. He lacks the capacity to generate a novel argument in support of his position because of his low general reasoning abilities.

All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.
 
2011-05-21 4:28:28 PM  

KiltedBastich: All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.


You know those annoying little dogs people carry around in their purses and such, who do nothing but yup and yap and serve no purpose but to utterly annoy you?

Well, you can't kick them.
 
2011-05-21 4:30:41 PM  

abb3w: I think he was getting you mixed up with KiltedBastich. It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade.


nope, but my horrible memory tricked me into thinking that i've personally had a conversation with him before where i understood that his view is primarily atheist concerning religion but deist in the big picture?? it's possible that i hallucinated the whole thing

abb3w: It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade.


a very good guess, except e_e isn't hot pink IB group, he actually made it to the sky blue potentially not an idiot clan

abb3w: Even using the "note" feature to keep a thumbnail personality sketch as well only helps just so much


i used to label farkers (because of that crappy memory thing) but i then later realized that people constantly label themselves so then i removed them all

abb3w: While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.


just a few more parting thoughts

have you noticed how much like Dimensio you are starting to sound like? perhaps you should see a quack?

pretty soon you'll just be asking Bevets why he knowingly lies

and poor dimensio will get mad at you for stealing his one and only schtick

tell Kilted i said hi, and i hope he finds the magic dolphin
 
2011-05-21 4:34:05 PM  

ninjakirby: KiltedBastich: All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.

You know those annoying little dogs people carry around in their purses and such, who do nothing but yup and yap and serve no purpose but to utterly annoy you?

Well, you can't kick them.


I can't kick idw either. It would probably be more satisfying if I could.
 
2011-05-21 4:39:38 PM  

ninjakirby: Well, you can't kick them.


i695.photobucket.comView Full Size


finally you get it! it only took you 4 years

good jorb lad

just don't troll them too deep some of em get a little confused
 
2011-05-21 11:52:06 PM  

Infinite Monkey: You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.


He Doesnt, at all.
 
2011-05-22 12:02:21 PM  

I drunk what: Feepit: IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring

sorry had trouble seeing your post with all the derp

i think e_e can answer for himself, but i appreciate your feedback as well

so then do you have a graphic that does accurately represent your view? (just for kicks)


i'm guessing you'd prefer something more like this?

static.newworldencyclopedia.orgView Full Size


or this

sciblogs.co.nzView Full Size


do you know of one of these that attempts to fill in some of these branches with animals like the first one i posted before?

i'd love to find some sort of interactive version where you could click on a section and it would illustrate how the evidence we have matches it or not
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments


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.