User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:46:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did you not understand that? All he said that Religion is a tool of controlling a populace, and in the absence on those control measures, new ones will be found. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ever heard of the term Untermensch? Germans believed certain classes of people were not fully human, e.g. not fully evolved, and consequently look what they did. If you reach the end of an algebra equation and realize you are left with 1=2, it becomes obvious to any thinking person that there was a mistake somewhere in their work, because the end result simply cannot be true. Likewise, if at the conclusion of your world view, you would agree with the assertion of characters such as Adam Lanza who believed they could commit acts of unimaginable evil, and avoid accountability forever by taking the easy way out via suicide.. If you believe there is no judgment or accountability after death, then by definition it cannot be a good worldview, if the end result has evil triumphing and never held accountable. Evolution says that instead of divine beings created in the image of God for His fellowship, that we are animals who evolved on our own, by chance. But interestingly enough, even in evolution believing societies such as North Korea, a replacement for God has to be found, and usually it is the state. As beings created to worship God, in His absence a replacement will always be found. And this is why in the years following the removal of God from public schools, Liberals have been following a more and more bizarre religion, made up year by year as they go, until today they deny even that we were created male and female. And with that last line, you lost me. Holy shit  If I believed in a creator, I would thank him daily for not giving me your reasoning skills. All he said that Religion is a tool of controlling a populace, and in the absence on those control measures, new ones will be found. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:47:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever heard of the term Untermensch? Germans believed certain classes of people were not fully human, e.g. not fully evolved, and consequently look what they did. If you reach the end of an algebra equation and realize you are left with 1=2, it becomes obvious to any thinking person that there was a mistake somewhere in their work, because the end result simply cannot be true. Likewise, if at the conclusion of your world view, you would agree with the assertion of characters such as Adam Lanza who believed they could commit acts of unimaginable evil, and avoid accountability forever by taking the easy way out via suicide.. If you believe there is no judgment or accountability after death, then by definition it cannot be a good worldview, if the end result has evil triumphing and never held accountable. Evolution says that instead of divine beings created in the image of God for His fellowship, that we are animals who evolved on our own, by chance. But interestingly enough, even in evolution believing societies such as North Korea, a replacement for God has to be found, and usually it is the state. As beings created to worship God, in His absence a replacement will always be found. And this is why in the years following the removal of God from public schools, Liberals have been following a more and more bizarre religion, made up year by year as they go, until today they deny even that we were created male and female. And with that last line, you lost me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who is to say that every human is fully evolved!? The end result of the evolutionary view of human genetics is precisely that some people are not "fully evolved". This contributed to if not directly caused many of the atrocities of the 20th century. No it isn't. And no it didn't. There is no such thing as "fully evolved." Quit making shit up, please. Or at least, make up interesting shit like demon-squatch stories. Ever heard of the term Untermensch? Germans believed certain classes of people were not fully human, e.g. not fully evolved, and consequently look what they did. If you reach the end of an algebra equation and realize you are left with 1=2, it becomes obvious to any thinking person that there was a mistake somewhere in their work, because the end result simply cannot be true. Likewise, if at the conclusion of your world view, you would agree with the assertion of characters such as Adam Lanza who believed they could commit acts of unimaginable evil, and avoid accountability forever by taking the easy way out via suicide.. If you believe there is no judgment or accountability after death, then by definition it cannot be a good worldview, if the end result has evil triumphing and never held accountable. Evolution says that instead of divine beings created in the image of God for His fellowship, that we are animals who evolved on our own, by chance. But interestingly enough, even in evolution believing societies such as North Korea, a replacement for God has to be found, and usually it is the state. As beings created to worship God, in His absence a replacement will always be found. And this is why in the years following the removal of God from public schools, Liberals have been following a more and more bizarre religion, made up year by year as they go, until today they deny even that we were created male and female. And with that last line, you lost me. Outstanding ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:49:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would bet it has to do with the reasoning of "Because Germans (who were 70% christian) also believed in evolution, clearly evolution is bad and it has nothing at all to do with long held anti-semitism that had been rolling around christian Europe for 400 years". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:  eta- And, actually, he kind of shot himself in the foot as he accidentally equated religion to Nazi and North Korean governance.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:49:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Robert E Lee didn't come from no damn ape
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:49:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="https://flic.kr/p/DuMXxw" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1505/24611029192_33ef4b395c_z.jpg</a>image by FredMan, on Flickr Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<a href="http://s42.photobucket.com/user/dbrad197/media/Mobile%20Uploads/10730221_563721360331004_2331799269754854247_n_zps84smxetn.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/dbrad197/Mobile%20Uploads/10730221_563721360331004_2331799269754854247_n_zps84smxetn.jpg</a> <a href="https://flic.kr/p/DuMXxw" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1505/24611029192_33ef4b395c_z.jpg</a>image by FredMan, on Flickr Oh LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:51:13 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:51:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Thumpers, do your job and entertain me with more of your lunatic rantings.
"Muh kiddoes ain't no monkay!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:52:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "Reality" you speak about is something I'm not aware of because I haven't followed you or this site for 10 years. So it wasn't meant in negative way just something I've noticed. One reality is; is that most atheist believe all religious people believe the same thing. Christians as an example. But, it is the same way religious people feel about there being only one type of atheist. We are both wrong. We are all individuals and it's why we care and explore what the truth is. Then debate it on sites like this. One day we'll have the correct answer, if allowed. I for one don't believe I evolved from a monkey/ape. Although scientist continue to examine and look at the evolution of mankind I don't believe there would be one scientist that truly said we have ALL the answers. It's why they are scientist. It's also why we must have an open mind about the future of what they discover. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Got to love all the anti-evolution folks who come into science threads. If you don't believe in evolution, why are you always talking about it? To use theist's logic, if you claim not to believe something but jump at every chance to talk about it, clearly you must know for a fact that evolution is true and you are scared to admit it because it would mean you can't live life how you want, but rather, must conform with reality. It must be the reason you always pop up in the Religious threads? You almost got the point of my post, except you missed the fact that people have been telling me that for 10 years and I'm just now applying their own logic against them, hence, the point of my post. The "Reality" you speak about is something I'm not aware of because I haven't followed you or this site for 10 years. So it wasn't meant in negative way just something I've noticed. One reality is; is that most atheist believe all religious people believe the same thing. Christians as an example. But, it is the same way religious people feel about there being only one type of atheist. We are both wrong. We are all individuals and it's why we care and explore what the truth is. Then debate it on sites like this. One day we'll have the correct answer, if allowed. I for one don't believe I evolved from a monkey/ape. Although scientist continue to examine and look at the evolution of mankind I don't believe there would be one scientist that truly said we have ALL the answers. It's why they are scientist. It's also why we must have an open mind about the future of what they discover. Nothing is 100% certain. Anyone who tells you they are 100% certain about anything is full of shit. That said, with evolution, we are really in the 99.999+% range of certainty about its validity. There really is no doubt for all intents and purposes within the scientific community IF evolution happened. We know that it did with a degree of certainty rivaling anything else we've ever discovered in science. This does not say a single thing about god(s) or the validity of a religion(s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:54:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is to say that every human is fully evolved!? there is no such thing as "fully evolved". saying that is like saying "fully next". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:00:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. Yeah... Something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:01:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It just means that genetic changes themselves tend to accumulate randomly.... Why? Because at the actual genetic level the shift in genes will have occurred by selection working on more or less random changes. These random changes won't produce the same genome as a modern monkey... Its not a case of old genes re-emerging (or at least, not more than a few of them), but rather new genetic material changing to give a similar appearance to the old genes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If that is true, then why hasn't anyone addressed the quote from the OP: "Those creatures have been on their own lineage for 10 million years. You can't go back up that lineage and back down again." Why not? If evolutionary direction is freely moblie, then why can't it 'devolve' the way it came when facing the necessary environment? Convergent evolution can produce phenotypes which bear resemblances to ancestral phenotypes if conditions change sufficiently to favor that phenotype again. That doesn't mean, however, that the genotype of the "new" version won't be significantly different. In fact, its a near mathematical certainty that it will be extremely different. Does that mean the genotypic variance leading to evolutionarily advantageous phenotypes only varies unidirectionally? If the genotypic changes the lead to phenotypic changes are NOT limited, then what is to stop retrograde genetic changes (aside from the obviously stated environmental suitability)? It just means that genetic changes themselves tend to accumulate randomly.... Why? Because at the actual genetic level the shift in genes will have occurred by selection working on more or less random changes. These random changes won't produce the same genome as a modern monkey... Its not a case of old genes re-emerging (or at least, not more than a few of them), but rather new genetic material changing to give a similar appearance to the old genes. Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato.
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:04:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always did think it was strange that of all the millions and millions of species that have lived on earth, only one evolved into building skyscrapers, mapping DNA, exploring space, etc. The other 99.9999999% are still the same dumbass animals they were hundreds/thousands/millions of years ago. I'm not coming from a religious point of view here, I've just never heard a solid explanation of why we have evolved so much further than every other species. Why do you hate science? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:08:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then... the problem with this particular line of argument. changes are channeled--that's what selection is. selection is passive, but it operates relentlessly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:08:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato.
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. No, there is another possibility. His statement was a short way of saying that environmental conditions that produce evolutionary changes don't run backwards. I would also guess that, like anyone else trying to explain evolution to people who have shown themselves unwilling to listen, he tried to keep it as simple as possible rather than go into a bunch of haplotype stuff that would be way beyond the abilities of people who still don't understand basics like the definition of "theory." It is easier to understand if you imagine a scientist trying to explain things to third graders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:10:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you hate science? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always did think it was strange that of all the millions and millions of species that have lived on earth, only one evolved into building skyscrapers, mapping DNA, exploring space, etc. The other 99.9999999% are still the same dumbass animals they were hundreds/thousands/millions of years ago. I'm not coming from a religious point of view here, I've just never heard a solid explanation of why we have evolved so much further than every other species. Why do you hate science? Where do you and he get the idea that we are so much further evolved than every other species? Evolution is about survival, not intelligence. Therefore, in evolutionary terms, the cockroach is much further evolved than we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:11:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the problem with this particular line of argument. changes are channeled--that's what selection is. selection is passive, but it operates relentlessly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then... the problem with this particular line of argument. changes are channeled--that's what selection is. selection is passive, but it operates relentlessly. No, SUCCESSFUL changes are channeled by natural selection. NS only operates on the principle of the environment being an experimental proving ground for changes that have already occured genetically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:11:51 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm waiting for chimps and dolphins flipping off humans in rush hour
traffic. Until then, you have nothing sub-species.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:17:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arguing evolution with most people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your opening move; the pigeon will strut around, shitting on the board and knocking over pieces, acting like it is winning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arguing evolution with most people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your opening move; the pigeon will strut around, shitting on the board and knocking over pieces, acting like it is winning. I found your opponent: Quoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:18:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. A LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time, unless you are selective breeding as we do with dogs and other domesticated animals. When humans force the issue we can speed some things up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. Yep. A LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time, unless you are selective breeding as we do with dogs and other domesticated animals. When humans force the issue we can speed some things up. Dags are a little different. All the varied breeds are still the same species but the genes that express certain traits are stackable. So breed short dogs for generations and they have short gene x 10... Still just a dag though not really evolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:18:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato. My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? Ridiculously improbably in common language is the same thing as "impossible". Really, the chances of a species "tracing its lineage backwards" (whatever that means, I agree its a shit phrase ), are so slim its ridiculous to consider them as a realistic possibility. It would be the same odds of starting with some monkeys the lab and then coming back in a 20 million years and and having a being that is capable of mating with a modern human and producing viable offspring. Even if you could Taylor the laboratory pressures to follow exactly what our ancestors faced and create something that looked essentially exactly like a modern human, the chances of having all of the exact same genetic mutations line up to produce a modern human genome is essentially zero. Not actually zero, but almost.That's the problem. With evolution, there is no goal. An organism that looks like a modern human but has a different genome isn't necessarily better or worse than a modern human because of it. If we had that genome instead of our current ones, we'd call that the human genomes and wouldn't know of the modern human genome that you and I share. There really is no "preferred" alternative. Just some alternatives that work better in certain situations than other alternatives, but many, many different alternatives that are "good enough". The chances of evolving any one specific alternative (aka, genotype) are much lower than evolving a similar alternative (phenotype). Think of it like cards. The chances of dealing out a 5 card strait from a random deck is much, much higher than dealing out a suited straight of 4 5 6 7 and 8 of clubs. Comparing to human biology, what you are asking for is dealing out a very, very specific sequence of cards. What is far far more likely to happen is the dealing of a practically similar suit of cards that gives you the same odds of winning, even if the specific cards (genes) are not the same. 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If that is true, then why hasn't anyone addressed the quote from the OP: "Those creatures have been on their own lineage for 10 million years. You can't go back up that lineage and back down again." Why not? If evolutionary direction is freely moblie, then why can't it 'devolve' the way it came when facing the necessary environment? Convergent evolution can produce phenotypes which bear resemblances to ancestral phenotypes if conditions change sufficiently to favor that phenotype again. That doesn't mean, however, that the genotype of the "new" version won't be significantly different. In fact, its a near mathematical certainty that it will be extremely different. Does that mean the genotypic variance leading to evolutionarily advantageous phenotypes only varies unidirectionally? If the genotypic changes the lead to phenotypic changes are NOT limited, then what is to stop retrograde genetic changes (aside from the obviously stated environmental suitability)? It just means that genetic changes themselves tend to accumulate randomly.... Why? Because at the actual genetic level the shift in genes will have occurred by selection working on more or less random changes. These random changes won't produce the same genome as a modern monkey... Its not a case of old genes re-emerging (or at least, not more than a few of them), but rather new genetic material changing to give a similar appearance to the old genes. Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato. My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? Ridiculously improbably in common language is the same thing as "impossible". Really, the chances of a species "tracing its lineage backwards" (whatever that means, I agree its a shit phrase ), are so slim its ridiculous to consider them as a realistic possibility. It would be the same odds of starting with some monkeys the lab and then coming back in a 20 million years and and having a being that is capable of mating with a modern human and producing viable offspring. Even if you could Taylor the laboratory pressures to follow exactly what our ancestors faced and create something that looked essentially exactly like a modern human, the chances of having all of the exact same genetic mutations line up to produce a modern human genome is essentially zero. Not actually zero, but almost.That's the problem. With evolution, there is no goal. An organism that looks like a modern human but has a different genome isn't necessarily better or worse than a modern human because of it. If we had that genome instead of our current ones, we'd call that the human genomes and wouldn't know of the modern human genome that you and I share. There really is no "preferred" alternative. Just some alternatives that work better in certain situations than other alternatives, but many, many different alternatives that are "good enough". The chances of evolving any one specific alternative (aka, genotype) are much lower than evolving a similar alternative (phenotype). Think of it like cards. The chances of dealing out a 5 card strait from a random deck is much, much higher than dealing out a suited straight of 4 5 6 7 and 8 of clubs. Comparing to human biology, what you are asking for is dealing out a very, very specific sequence of cards. What is far far more likely to happen is the dealing of a practically similar suit of cards that gives you the same odds of winning, even if the specific cards (genes) are not the same. 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:21:20 PM EDT
[#21]
I'd fight a monkey. I hate those nasty fucking things and I'd love to beat the brakes off one. That's all I have to add here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:21:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, there is another possibility. His statement was a short way of saying that environmental conditions that produce evolutionary changes don't run backwards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato.
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. No, there is another possibility. His statement was a short way of saying that environmental conditions that produce evolutionary changes don't run backwards. I understand and agree on thr part about oversimplification for the target audience. But how are environmental conditions fundamentally incapable of repeating in reverse order? I'm not saying that the entire universe needs to halt and reverse course clear back to the big bang, but how is it determined to be impossible for conditions to change for long enough that a species finds a former genotype more advantageous? Obviously macro and micro evolution aren't the same. However, in the winter, I get cold. I grow my beard out. In the summer it's too hot, so I shave it off. But when winter returns...that beard becomes advantageous again! That is the same concept that the evolutionary biologists are arguing as impossible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:22:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you have a high fence around your yard and you think that makes you special. OK. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I ain't no dumbass animal. Do you see me howling at the moon, eating my own poop, whacking off, or playing soccer? So you have a high fence around your yard and you think that makes you special. OK. I think you missed what he was actually conveying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:23:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd fight a monkey. I hate those nasty fucking things and I'd love to beat the brakes off one. That's all I have to add here. Monkeys and apes, including humans, are all assholes. Easily as bad as cats. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:23:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dags are a little different. All the varied breeds are still the same species but the genes that express certain traits are stackable. So breed short dogs for generations and they have short gene x 10... Still just a dag though not really evolution. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Evolution take a long time. Yep. A LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time, unless you are selective breeding as we do with dogs and other domesticated animals. When humans force the issue we can speed some things up. Dags are a little different. All the varied breeds are still the same species but the genes that express certain traits are stackable. So breed short dogs for generations and they have short gene x 10... Still just a dag though not really evolution. Also, there's now research suggesting that wolves were domesticated twice which led to greater variation of domesticated dogs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:24:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, SUCCESSFUL changes are channeled by natural selection. NS only operates on the principle of the environment being an experimental proving ground for changes that have already occured genetically. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then... the problem with this particular line of argument. changes are channeled--that's what selection is. selection is passive, but it operates relentlessly. No, SUCCESSFUL changes are channeled by natural selection. NS only operates on the principle of the environment being an experimental proving ground for changes that have already occured genetically. distinction without a difference. 'success' is a value term that is attached to natural processes by human beings--it has no meaning in nature. liquid water is channeled by gravity and geomorphology--that doesn't make it 'successful', or evaporated water vapor 'unsuccessful'. now, if you mean that genetic changes aren't consciously manipulated by a thinking agent with superpowers to alter nucleotides, then ok i guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:27:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/27/dear-science-why-arent-apes-evolving-into-humans/?ref=yfp Dear Science: Why are there no hominins left on Earth? If evolution is ongoing and species are always changing and adapting, shouldn't we see new human-like species evolving from apes, even if the old ones died out? Here's what science has to say: We hate to be the ones to break it to you, but you are an ape. So were the Neanderthals, the Hobbits, Lucy the Australopithecus, the Taung child and Peking man. And while we're at it, so are orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees. All of us evolved from a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago, and together we make up the taxonomic family Hominidae. Also known as hominids. Also known as great apes. And there are hominins left on Earth — us. "Hominin" is the the technical term for archaic and modern humans — that is, creatures that are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and chimps. (We know, the terminology can be confusing. Bring it up with the paleoanthropologists.) And to explain why we are the only ones around — for now, at least — you have to think about how evolution works. First of all, the creatures we call apes are our cousins, not our ancestors. Which would make it very hard for them to evolve into something like us. "Asking why an archaic human isn't evolving from gorillas today is like asking why the children of your cousins don't look more like you," said Matt Tocheri, an anthropology professor at Lakehead University and a researcher in the National Museum of Natural History's Human Origins Program. "Those creatures have been on their own lineage for 10 million years. You can't go back up that lineage and back down again." look at where we are now...would you want to evolve into this????  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:29:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. -> Off to get popcorn.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:31:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: distinction without a difference. 'success' is a value term that is attached to natural processes by human beings--it has no meaning in nature. liquid water is channeled by gravity and geomorphology--that doesn't make it 'successful', or evaporated water vapor 'unsuccessful'. now, if you mean that genetic changes aren't consciously manipulated by a thinking agent with superpowers to alter nucleotides, then ok i guess. Quote HistoryQuoted: No, SUCCESSFUL changes are channeled by natural selection. NS only operates on the principle of the environment being an experimental proving ground for changes that have already occured genetically. distinction without a difference. 'success' is a value term that is attached to natural processes by human beings--it has no meaning in nature. liquid water is channeled by gravity and geomorphology--that doesn't make it 'successful', or evaporated water vapor 'unsuccessful'. now, if you mean that genetic changes aren't consciously manipulated by a thinking agent with superpowers to alter nucleotides, then ok i guess. Philosophy has no meaning in nature either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:34:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Monkeys and apes, including humans, are all assholes. Easily as bad as cats. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'd fight a monkey. I hate those nasty fucking things and I'd love to beat the brakes off one. That's all I have to add here. Monkeys and apes, including humans, are all assholes. Easily as bad as cats. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:36:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I found your opponent: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Arguing evolution with most people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good your opening move; the pigeon will strut around, shitting on the board and knocking over pieces, acting like it is winning. I found your opponent: Quoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. yup, so long that it hasn't even happened yet. It's a religion. Based completely off a belief for which there is no hard evidence. None. But go ahead and believe there is. You can tells who's who by all the clucking and cooing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:36:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand and agree on thr part about oversimplification for the target audience. But how are environmental conditions fundamentally incapable of repeating in reverse order? I'm not saying that the entire universe needs to halt and reverse course clear back to the big bang, but how is it determined to be impossible for conditions to change for long enough that a species finds a former genotype more advantageous? Obviously macro and micro evolution aren't the same. However, in the winter, I get cold. I grow my beard out. In the summer it's too hot, so I shave it off. But when winter returns...that beard becomes advantageous again! That is the same concept that the evolutionary biologists are arguing as impossible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato.
My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. No, there is another possibility. His statement was a short way of saying that environmental conditions that produce evolutionary changes don't run backwards. I understand and agree on thr part about oversimplification for the target audience. But how are environmental conditions fundamentally incapable of repeating in reverse order? I'm not saying that the entire universe needs to halt and reverse course clear back to the big bang, but how is it determined to be impossible for conditions to change for long enough that a species finds a former genotype more advantageous? Obviously macro and micro evolution aren't the same. However, in the winter, I get cold. I grow my beard out. In the summer it's too hot, so I shave it off. But when winter returns...that beard becomes advantageous again! That is the same concept that the evolutionary biologists are arguing as impossible. Call it "unlikely in the extreme". Better? And here we get to the point where you should really take a class in the subject. Your ideas about what they are arguing show no real understanding of the issues at all. That's the real problem -- those who argue against evolution show so no more knowledge of it than you would find in a typical third-grade student, and that lack of knowledge almost invariably turns out to be deliberate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:39:24 PM EDT
[#33]
The 1st and presumably simplest lifeform should have kept evolving from the mud over and over to this day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:40:01 PM EDT
[#34]
I had a girlfriend who looked at me like I was crazy when I casually said "hey, we're all descended from apes ". She literally had no idea what I was talking about. The following 15-20 minutes was weird, so I just fucked her.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:42:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/27/dear-science-why-arent-apes-evolving-into-humans/?ref=yfp Dear Science: Why are there no hominins left on Earth? If evolution is ongoing and species are always changing and adapting, shouldn't we see new human-like species evolving from apes, even if the old ones died out? Here's what science has to say: We hate to be the ones to break it to you, but you are an ape. So were the Neanderthals, the Hobbits, Lucy the Australopithecus, the Taung child and Peking man. And while we're at it, so are orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees. All of us evolved from a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago, and together we make up the taxonomic family Hominidae. Also known as hominids. Also known as great apes. And there are hominins left on Earth — us. "Hominin" is the the technical term for archaic and modern humans — that is, creatures that are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and chimps. (We know, the terminology can be confusing. Bring it up with the paleoanthropologists.) And to explain why we are the only ones around — for now, at least — you have to think about how evolution works. First of all, the creatures we call apes are our cousins, not our ancestors. Which would make it very hard for them to evolve into something like us. "Asking why an archaic human isn't evolving from gorillas today is like asking why the children of your cousins don't look more like you," said Matt Tocheri, an anthropology professor at Lakehead University and a researcher in the National Museum of Natural History's Human Origins Program. "Those creatures have been on their own lineage for 10 million years. You can't go back up that lineage and back down again." Are you really that stupid, or is it an act ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:42:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As human beings cataloging the changes made from selection pressures, continued passing of genes that pass muster being defined as successful against said pressures makes a lot of sense. Philosophy has no meaning in nature either.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, SUCCESSFUL changes are channeled by natural selection. NS only operates on the principle of the environment being an experimental proving ground for changes that have already occured genetically. distinction without a difference. 'success' is a value term that is attached to natural processes by human beings--it has no meaning in nature. liquid water is channeled by gravity and geomorphology--that doesn't make it 'successful', or evaporated water vapor 'unsuccessful'. now, if you mean that genetic changes aren't consciously manipulated by a thinking agent with superpowers to alter nucleotides, then ok i guess. Philosophy has no meaning in nature either.
i'm a solipsist. nature is whatever i say it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:42:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I understand and agree on thr part about oversimplification for the target audience. But how are environmental conditions fundamentally incapable of repeating in reverse order? I'm not saying that the entire universe needs to halt and reverse course clear back to the big bang, but how is it determined to be impossible for conditions to change for long enough that a species finds a former genotype more advantageous? Obviously macro and micro evolution aren't the same. However, in the winter, I get cold. I grow my beard out. In the summer it's too hot, so I shave it off. But when winter returns...that beard becomes advantageous again! That is the same concept that the evolutionary biologists are arguing as impossible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for indulging me. Some of this stuff is difficult to discuss while typing on an iPotato. My issue is this: if the genetic changes are both random (which we can agree on) AND open ended (not channelled in a specific direction), then didn't the anthropologist I quoted from the OP mean to say that a species traversing their lineage backwards is 'highly improbable,' instead of "You can't go back up that lineage and back down again."? That leaves me with four possibilities: 1. The experts in the OP are arguing that improbable means impossible. Wouldn't that same thinking invalidate the entire process of natural selection? 2. Millions and millions of years were plenty for the slow development of a multitude of unique species, but not enough for a SINGLE EXAMPLE of genetic changes reverting back to previous genotypic forms. Once again, the experts in the OP are wrong. 3. Genetic variance is not unlimited. There is some unidentified influence on why genes can't change to become closer to ancestral genotypes. This is the most logical, but conflicts with most current teaching on evolutionary biology. Is it possible the experts are wrong? 4. Mistaken word choice by the expert. The experts are wrong. No, there is another possibility. His statement was a short way of saying that environmental conditions that produce evolutionary changes don't run backwards. I understand and agree on thr part about oversimplification for the target audience. But how are environmental conditions fundamentally incapable of repeating in reverse order? I'm not saying that the entire universe needs to halt and reverse course clear back to the big bang, but how is it determined to be impossible for conditions to change for long enough that a species finds a former genotype more advantageous? Obviously macro and micro evolution aren't the same. However, in the winter, I get cold. I grow my beard out. In the summer it's too hot, so I shave it off. But when winter returns...that beard becomes advantageous again! That is the same concept that the evolutionary biologists are arguing as impossible. They are talking about tracing the SAME PATH backwards. Something which is extremely unlikely. There is nothing preventing humans in some distant future evolving to chimp like, or even monkey like creatures. They will not be genetically the same as chimps or monkeys. The genes will be closer to human genes than either of those two creatures, even if they LOOK and ACT much more like chimps or monkeys than humans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:48:14 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 1st and presumably simplest lifeform should have kept evolving from the mud over and over to this day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:50:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i'm a solipsist. nature is whatever i say it is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: i'm a solipsist. nature is whatever i say it is. Shit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:50:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1st and presumably simplest lifeform should have kept evolving from the mud over and over to this day. Um...huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:54:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well. Shit... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: i'm a solipsist. nature is whatever i say it is. Shit... ha! wait... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:55:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/27/dear-science-why-arent-apes-evolving-into-humans/?ref=yfp Dear Science: Why are there no hominins left on Earth? If evolution is ongoing and species are always changing and adapting, shouldn't we see new human-like species evolving from apes, even if the old ones died out? Here's what science has to say: We hate to be the ones to break it to you, but you are an ape. So were the Neanderthals, the Hobbits, Lucy the Australopithecus, the Taung child and Peking man. And while we're at it, so are orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees. All of us evolved from a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago, and together we make up the taxonomic family Hominidae. Also known as hominids. Also known as great apes. And there are hominins left on Earth — us. "Hominin" is the the technical term for archaic and modern humans — that is, creatures that are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and chimps. (We know, the terminology can be confusing. Bring it up with the paleoanthropologists.) And to explain why we are the only ones around — for now, at least — you have to think about how evolution works. First of all, the creatures we call apes are our cousins, not our ancestors. Which would make it very hard for them to evolve into something like us. "Asking why an archaic human isn't evolving from gorillas today is like asking why the children of your cousins don't look more like you," said Matt Tocheri, an anthropology professor at Lakehead University and a researcher in the National Museum of Natural History's Human Origins Program. "Those creatures have been on their own lineage for 10 million years. You can't go back up that lineage and back down again." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:56:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Um...huh? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The 1st and presumably simplest lifeform should have kept evolving from the mud over and over to this day. Um...huh? I.E. If species x evolved into species y, and there is still species x, they should still be be periodically evolving into species Y. Basically what would happen in some weired closed community, with no genetic drift and no changing selective pressure, but only one selective pressure that happens intermittently over time to allow both X and Y to exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 9:58:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes evolution, just not "natural selection". Also, there's now research suggesting that wolves were domesticated twice which led to greater variation of domesticated dogs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Evolution take a long time. Yep. A LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time, unless you are selective breeding as we do with dogs and other domesticated animals. When humans force the issue we can speed some things up. Dags are a little different. All the varied breeds are still the same species but the genes that express certain traits are stackable. So breed short dogs for generations and they have short gene x 10... Still just a dag though not really evolution. Also, there's now research suggesting that wolves were domesticated twice which led to greater variation of domesticated dogs. It's not really evolution in that there is no speciation. Heck dags aren't even a different species than wolves they are still capable of interbreeding and producing offspring which are not sterile. They are a neat example of how selection can produce variation but it's hard to say they prove evolution when really they are simply a very adaptable species which allows for an incredible amount of diversity. Evolution sort of hits a wall when it comes to canis lupas as they are so adaptable without speciating. It would seem likely to me that wolves were domesticated far more than twice and in many different locations as well as dogs going ferral and more or less turning back in to wolves |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:00:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd fight a monkey. I hate those nasty fucking things and I'd love to beat the brakes off one. That's all I have to add here. I don't. They've got more muscle than we do. Give me my gonnes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:03:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Evolution? Ha! If anything humanity is becoming more ape-like. We changed the environment with civilization, made it friendly to less successful traits (stupid, fat, slow, disorganized, retarded, disabled, etc) and the species has changed/expanded to fill that environment, and devolve. Our philosophy shelters and supports the less succesful (altruism, compassion, charity). This is contrary to nature. We devolve. A harsh environment breeds a strong species. Wars and struggle are harsh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:07:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always did think it was strange that of all the millions and millions of species that have lived on earth, only one evolved into building skyscrapers, mapping DNA, exploring space, etc. The other 99.9999999% are still the same dumbass animals they were hundreds/thousands/millions of years ago. not coming from a religious point of view here, I've just never heard a solid explanation of why we have evolved so much further than every other species. I would wager that just about every species on the planet considers itself to individually be at the pinnacle of Earthly existence thanks to the adaptations that help it survive within its niche. Birds think it's lame you can't fly. Cheetahs think it's lame you can't run at 60mph. Bees think it's lame you can't make honey to feed your family. That said, it's not fair to diminish the achievements of other species without trying to appreciate things from their perspective. Sky scrapers, you mentioned? Dude, this termite mound IS a fucking skyscraper: 
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-animal-house-the-incredible-termite-mound/7222/ And they built it without calculators, heavy machinery or being able to see! It's properly ventilated, and has separate chambers for waste disposal, raising young, and growing their own fungus for food. If termites were the size of golden retrievers we might be in serious fucking trouble. Point is, we are awesome. But we are not uniquely awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:11:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He thinks if a thing happened once, it should have happened over and over again under false impression that things are static. I.E. If species x evolved into species y, and there is still species x, they should still be be periodically evolving into species Y. Basically what would happen in some weired closed community, with no genetic drift and no changing selective pressure, but only one selective pressure that happens intermittently over time to allow both X and Y to exist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 1st and presumably simplest lifeform should have kept evolving from the mud over and over to this day. Um...huh? I.E. If species x evolved into species y, and there is still species x, they should still be be periodically evolving into species Y. Basically what would happen in some weired closed community, with no genetic drift and no changing selective pressure, but only one selective pressure that happens intermittently over time to allow both X and Y to exist. mud is mud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:12:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not really evolution in that there is no speciation. Heck dags aren't even a different species than wolves they are still capable of interbreeding and producing offspring which are not sterile. They are a neat example of how selection can produce variation but it's hard to say they prove evolution when really they are simply a very adaptable species which allows for an incredible amount of diversity. Evolution sort of hits a wall when it comes to canis lupas as they are so adaptable without speciating. It would seem likely to me that wolves were domesticated far more than twice and in many different locations as well as dogs going ferral and more or less turning back in to wolves Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It would seem likely to me that wolves were domesticated far more than twice and in many different locations as well as dogs going ferral and more or less turning back in to wolves "they are so adaptable without speciating." Yes, because they evolve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 10:13:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always did think it was strange that of all the millions and millions of species that have lived on earth, only one evolved into building skyscrapers, mapping DNA, exploring space, etc. The other 99.9999999% are still the same dumbass animals they were hundreds/thousands/millions of years ago. I'm not coming from a religious point of view here, I've just never heard a solid explanation of why we have evolved so much further than every other species. The answer is that it was a gradual process, Homo Habilis (the first of our subtribe Homina) for instance was not that different from the other animals, it could use simple tools, like a Chimpanzee does today, but that was about it, simple stone tools but no fire, cloths, or anything else really but over time and subsequent decendents (Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthensis, and Homo Idaltu) that gradually changed. Our "niche" was brain capacity and the use of tools, we were not particularly strong, had no sharp teeth or claws and were rather ungainly and relied on foraging and hunting to survive the smart ones were simply the ones to survive and over time our brain capacity became greater and greater and we relied more and more on our tools as we became more and more modern. We are the only species to posses technology because we are the only species to evolve the ability. It's our evolutionary niche, we are not srong, fast, or armored, and we have no sharp teeth or claws and we are not exactly graceful but we have big extremely powerful brains that let us create technology and reshape and dominate the world around us. We may not be able to take on a bear hand to hand, but we can kill one from a thousand yards off without breaking a sweat, it's kind of our thing. Homo Habilis: 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
