|
Post by Matt on May 8, 2011 12:12:55 GMT
the is a funny word.
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 8, 2011 16:26:26 GMT
I hate you.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 8, 2011 16:49:47 GMT
Wait, I thought you were a theistic evolutionist with a peculiar twist, and not almost completely against evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 9, 2011 5:12:04 GMT
Actually, you're wrong, it's the best way to live. Think about it this way, Mutty boy. You've already agreed that natural selection is a real thing, as evidenced by the pepper-moth saga. Natural selection allowed the pepper moth to continue existing as a species. The fact that paleontology is an amorphous science is kind of the same thing-- intellectual natural selection. The bad ideas get cut away, leaving only the truth. Whereas in religion, the bad ideas fester and enforce a stagnant mindset. Look how long it took them to stop bitching about Gallileo... Boom, bitch, this I can do. And not even with fossils. Perhaps the most famous test of evolution occured when Charles Darwin himself, way back in 1862, predicted the existance of a moth so outlandish most people thought him insane. The story behind it is as follows. Dear Charlesybabe was reviewing the structure of a particular plant (the comet orchid of Madagascar). The orchid's most interesting feature is that for any animal to pollinate it, it must be able to reach right down a ridiculously long tube in order to reach the nectar. Thus, mister Darwin surmised that evolution must have created a moth with a probscis long enough for the job. Which was a pretty batshit insane idea. And then, lo and behold... They discovered this bastard. Evolution predicting the existance of a species. And if that isn't enough for you... Paleontologists have long predicted that whales evolved from shrew-like mammals that took to the water and eventually grew huge. The problem was, it was just a theory-- a prediction. They surmised that a species must exist that was somewhere in the middle-- between terrestrial mammals and whales. And then, finally, after years of searching, they came across ambulocetus-- meaning literally, walking whale. It shows distinct relation in structure to whales, and the compression of the spine indicates that it swam like modern cetaceans. However, it had legs, short as they were, and could thus live both in and out of water, much like a crocodile. Paleontologists had predicted the "missing link" between whales and mammals, and then they found it. I do believe this is exactly what you were asking for...? The same has occured for australopithecus, the link between humans and apes, and even myllokunminjia, the link between vertebrates and invertebrates. Then how Do you explain the existance of sinosauropteryx, archaeopteryx, microraptor, etc. etc., and the existance of feathers on dinosaurs? Pray tell, old bean. I'll answer those three questions for you presently, I just have to do a bit more research. Cheers lad.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 9, 2011 6:01:32 GMT
That is indeed a Colossus Proboscus.
Also, real men don't do research.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 9, 2011 6:31:29 GMT
Actually, you're wrong, it's teh best way to live. No, it's not. I'm talking about your entire worldview here, not merely part of it. Changing your worldview (or merely radically altering it) is a life-changing event. Living that way all the time is intrinsically unstable, which is precisely the point Kuhn makes about paradigm shifts (I'm surprised nobody's commented on all my references to him yet, actually); we subsume new evidence with our worldview and explain away anomalies provided their count is acceptably low, which makes more sense than throwing out everything we know at the first hiccup. The Gallileo affair was more to do with the arrogance of both Gallileo and the Pope than a problem with religion per se. Sure, there's a lot of poor fondling in religion, but that's not limited to religion; that's a part of humanity. How is this a prediction of evolutionary theory? If a plant has to be pollinated to survive and it's clearly been around for some time, then there has to be something with a probiscis long enough to pollinate it. Now sure, you can bolt it on afterwards, but it's not actually evolution making the prediction, is it? Actually, it's good that you brought this up, since it more accurately demonstrates one of the points I'm making; evolution is more like an explanatory framework than a scientific theory. Nothing wrong with that, mind, as long as you don't get the two confused. Ah, yes, highly specific; "There's something between shrew-like mammels and whales and it might be here. Let's go dig!" Mm, no. Even assuming all of this information is accurate (and if they can't even accurately identify dinosaur fossils a third of the time, who's to say they got it right here?) the prediction is too broad for us to honestly credit evolutionary theory for the discovery. And re your point about them predicting what it'd look like; what did they do here? Was it a "looks a bit like both a whale and a shrew" or was it a specific description? Oh, and let's have links/references to the specific predictions, please. (I meant to ask for them from the get-go.) Details, please. Let's hope it fares better than the previous ones. I don't. We covered this partially on Hamachi, but I can go into more detail here if you want. keine problemo, seƱor
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 9, 2011 6:45:28 GMT
You can't expect predictions that are too specific because scientists won't do that in this area... Because people tend to say "LOL U SEILLY, you're letting your imaginations run away with you, you can't predict things with that level of accuracy."
Because we can't... Quite... We can't Truly predict what evolution will have done to a species in the past beyond a vague impression of what it probably looked like. Because we aren't a hundred percent certain of every single environmental and biological factor at the time... And it's a bit too random a process.
We can make a shit ton of predictions, but we're a bit hesitant, because we don't have all the facts about that creature's pressures.
And, Mut... If you're allowed to say "I don't know" when asked to prove anything, why can't I say "I don't know" when you ask just how life started, or how mutation is supposed to generate new species?
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 9, 2011 6:50:44 GMT
Uhh, you do know how life started and how mutation generates new species. That's your key point.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 9, 2011 10:15:34 GMT
I was referring to the holes Sniper raised on hamachi-- i.e. how the primordial soup managed to be stable enough to create life, and how mutation creates new data.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 10, 2011 5:47:47 GMT
Mutation creating new data is simple. Radiation comes in, causes a part of DNA to detach from the rest and voila, an altered genome.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 10, 2011 6:15:41 GMT
Well, exactly-- causes an existing part of our DNA to detach. Sniper's point was, that's modification, not adding new data-- the definition of mutation.
Though we know that mutation can add extra limbs, this is by modifying the code already there, rather than adding more data... An interesting thought. I don't think it's quite so big a road block to evolution as Sniper was implying, though.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 10, 2011 7:10:49 GMT
In that case, he misunderstood what mutation actually does. If he thought that mutation meant adding new data to the genome, he was wrong. It happens spontaneously.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 10, 2011 7:43:30 GMT
No, he was saying mutation Doesn't mean adding new data. That's literally his problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 10, 2011 22:31:21 GMT
You can't expect predictions that are too specific because scientists won't do that in this area... Which is the point. It gets too vague to be actually falsifiable. And if it's that vague, well, I'll let you work the rest out. Of course you can. It doesn't leave us in the same place, admittedly, but if you don't know, it's much better when you admit it. btw, if I don't respond for the next week or so, I ain't pulling a Sir Robin; it's just personal stuff. Hopefully it'll get sorted out quickly.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 10, 2011 22:32:04 GMT
double post to get us away from that massive image
|
|