 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 275 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614221 Today 3 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah Darwin wasn't objective... I'll write something soon guys (why I don't like the theory of evolution)... just hang on. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well. if you know nothing about it, of course you don't have any opinion about it. If you know anything about it, you must have an opinion about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"piklet" eh? Never heard that term before. We Canucks call them hotcakes or pancakes or flapjacks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of the most basic stuff > there is no evidence of that "evolution is a mechanical process of 'increasing fitness and utility over time'". Nothing on earth has gradually adapted to anything. quoting: "If Darwian or neo-Darwian evolution was correct species ought to be fluid at the present time." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the theory of natural selection's absurd. if we were the products of evolution, we'd have ended up with redundant organs like the appendix. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of the most basic stuff > there is no evidence of that "evolution is a mechanical process of 'increasing fitness and utility over time'". That looks like a nested quote - you're quoting someone who is quoting someone else. Source? Nothing on earth has gradually adapted to anything. If you can prove that assertion you are guaranteed the Nobel prize. "If Darwian or neo-Darwian evolution was correct species ought to be fluid at the present time." Again, what's your source? And what makes you think species are not currently fluid? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Nothing on earth has gradually adapted to anything." yes, i watched my dog for seven hours the other day, couldn't see any evolution. that's proof enough for me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK, let's turn this into an Autechre topic. Autechre's music has evolved a lot throughout the years, don't you think ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the theory of natural selection's absurd. Yeah. I agree. if we were the products of evolution, we'd have ended up with redundant organs like the appendix. the appendix is used to create e.g. B-vitamins... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh wait, now i remember. i saw a documentary which showed how apes evolved from charlton heston or something. amazes me that a sophisticated animal could evolve from such a primitive ancestor. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what's the proof they are fluid??? think about it!!! All species appear in their definite shape. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
quotes are quotes... I'll get you the source later... but really, I don't think where I got the source from matters. But I do think it's important that I don't take any credit from something that's not my own, so yeah.. I'll give you the source. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nothing on earth has gradually adapted to anything. If you can prove that assertion you are guaranteed the Nobel prize. Who has proved that species do adapt? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, an individual creature appears in a definite shape. A species is composed of one or more populations of individuals, and there is genetic variation within any given population. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. (alleles are genes that code for different manifestations of the same trait, e.g., blue versus brown eyes, long versus short fingers, etc.) Indeed, populations are so fluid that given enough time and geographic isolation one population will be unable to interbreed with another population. This is called speciation. Read more . I don't mean to offend you, but you don't seem to know a lot about the subject, and you should understand it better before you attempt to critique it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know much... but I should check out that URL. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, the classic argument from ignorance. If you make a positive statement, I have to disprove it, eh? It's not like you have to back up any of your arguments, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
read about darwin's finches. or those moths in england during the industrial revolution. natural selection's observable. all species are fluid - a change in habitat will gradually select towards the offspring best fitted to the changed conditions. of course, this is more obvious in organisms which reproduce faster, like insects or, even better, viruses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i managed to resist saying 'viruses like george bush', because politics is baaad. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah, fleetmouse has already explained it better. and now i'm seeing rabbits with pikelets on their heads. time for bed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just one thing... if species have gradually evolved... how come we only find species that are in their definite shape? It seems like when trying to explain how a specie evolved, you grab different types of 'complete' species. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not good at explaining this in english, when I'm tired... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha quote from you: "well. if you know nothing about it, of course you don't have any opinion about it. " another quote from you: "I don't know much... but I should check out that URL." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How about |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:) not to pick on you specifically or anything, but what you said is very black and white. and when you take various factors into the situation, the black and whiteness of the situation isn't so clearly distinguished. so if i know SOMEthing about darwin's theory, it does not necessarily mean i have a definite opinion on it (as in 'i think it's good' or 'i think it's bad') in the way you project the word 'opinion' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that URL said nothing about that they had gradually evolved. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or is it just me being tired? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
go sleep! pick it up tomorrow! haha :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's an example of one species gradually transitioning into another across the axis of distance rather than time. If you want to see evolution over time you have to look at the fossil record. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... maybe I should... I also have the feeling we do not even discuss the same thing here... Can't you prove me wrong by actually quoting me and saying "this is how it is". I am more into being right (in the end) here, than proving myself right (now). so please quote me and correct me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fossils appear in their definite shape... that's what I'm talking about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when i said: "how about induction within a construct, made through a combination of elements?" i was referring to a possible set of variables that come into play to affect situation x. so something like environment (weather), politics, society, culture, values, ethics, trends, economy - they all come together in varied ways in order to create what seems to us to be a certain familiar pattern within a certain period of time. those examples of course are limited, i admit, but they are the first ones that come to my mind... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah it's possible that what im reading from you is different from what you are trying to communicate - and vice versa :) i think from what i gathered in this particular thread was: 1) you disagreed with darwin's theory, stating it was faulty or something of that sort 2) i stated that you can't just say it's faulty without evidence or a decent argument 3) you told me that therefore i must think darwin's theory was true 4) i refuted by saying that i never said it was true or false. 5) then you said that i must not know much about it because i dont have an opinion about it. does that seem familiar? :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe no dude -- that's not how it was ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, prove it :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can an object have more than one shape? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
575 years is a more realistic projection actually.... :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1) you disagreed with darwin's theory, stating it was faulty or something of that sort I disagree wth the theory, yes 2) i stated that you can't just say it's faulty without evidence or a decent argument yeah.. and you got that right! 3) you told me that therefore i must think darwin's theory was true Where did I say that? 4) i refuted by saying that i never said it was true or false. did you use the words true/false? I can't find that post... 5) then you said that i must not know much about it because i dont have an opinion about it. I certainly did not say that. I said: well. if you know nothing about it, of course you don't have any opinion about it. If you know anything about it, you must have an opinion about it. it was a joke, but based on logic. If you know nothing about [something] you can't have an opinion about it. If you know something about [something] you must have an opinion about it. it's just the way it is =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry I'm not following here... can you please quote me like I said and explain more what you mean... my english isn't good at all when I'm tired. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not just my english. my whole way of communicating isn't working very well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it was a joke, but based on logic. If you know nothing about [something] you can't have an opinion about it. If you know something about [something] you must have an opinion about it. it's just the way it is =) that is, if you have thought about it, and what you know isn't just "words" to you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry if this was already stated, but i read phrases like "just a theory" when, according to the scientific community, a theory is a hypothesis that is considered to have been proven, backed up by undoubtable evidence. certainly there were plenty of details in darwin's theory that were later to be found not very on, but i think the large pattern of evolutionary theory makes more sense than anything else. brassica spp. anyone? hard to dispute. and evolution is really just the large patterns that manifest from atomic and quantum level natural behavior. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Didn't we evolve from apes or something? Some of us? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
All of those influences come into play whether induction or deduction is used. But I prefer examining things rather than making assumptions about them so I prefer induction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Humans may have evolved from hockey players. Some of the similarities are astonishing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well... that's what I wanna know. But from what I've heard the idea of us evolving from apes is based on some apes. And then we assume that one kind of ape evolved into the other, without any evidence. or if there is evidence of this, I just haven't heard about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, its not true |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah... that's not what I meant by "theory" when I wrote that... thanks for letting me know! :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we didn't evolve from apes according to theory, but we share a common ancestor with apes. our closest relative speicies are the chimpanzees. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
