Evolution

[fenrizz]

snip

I never said any rant about Creationism. I just it is a theory. I never said it wasn't real or unobservable.

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

All I have said is that it is not fully complete and our understanding of it changes. Which what I meant by that is for people to stop taking it as divine fact. It could be proved to be wrong but I don't think it will be but we should be open to change.

Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood my post.

I did not accuse you of saying such things, I was just pointing out that people are likely to believe so when you say that.

I see your point

 

[Count Igor]

Nope, I really mean we're, were and where are all spelt were. Saying "this means this but this different spelling means this and this spelling means this" ... it's the same word! I think we should stop messing about with 3 veriations on one word and condense it down to "were".

This is why English is called the hardest language to learn (or so I have heard), it's all these bull shit little semantics and I watched this vid and it sounds like we can't even talk properly any more.

I think our language needs to evolve (bringing it back on topic a little) to cut out all these stupid nuances and just have "were", "there", "Which" and "to". You say them all the same anyway.

I understand your point with things like "Too" and "There" (Though I disagree), but the stance I'm making with Where still stands! Were, We're and Where are all pronounced differently! Maybe it's where you're from that makes you think otherwise. That's understandable.

Though you know, if we got rid of words like Their and They're, and just made it into There, then a lot of sentences would stop making sense.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There are several Laws of Science that are right out wrong though. Take Newtons Laws, they are not correct at all, but they are close enough to still be useful, but that doesn't make them right. And yet Einsteins Theories explain it a lot better, and is mostly considered a theory. (Although I think parts of his stuff has been replaced bye even better theories, as is the way of science)

Any law of science can change, so they are really theories too...

 

[omega 616]

Nope, I really mean we're, were and where are all spelt were. Saying "this means this but this different spelling means this and this spelling means this" ... it's the same word! I think we should stop messing about with 3 veriations on one word and condense it down to "were".

This is why English is called the hardest language to learn (or so I have heard), it's all these bull shit little semantics and I watched this vid and it sounds like we can't even talk properly any more.

I think our language needs to evolve (bringing it back on topic a little) to cut out all these stupid nuances and just have "were", "there", "Which" and "to". You say them all the same anyway.

I understand your point with things like "Too" and "There" (Though I disagree), but the stance I'm making with Where still stands! Were, We're and Where are all pronounced differently! Maybe it's where you're from that makes you think otherwise. That's understandable.

Though you know, if we got rid of words like Their and They're, and just made it into There, then a lot of sentences would stop making sense.

I would ask you to prove it but I would still read there, there and there, were, were and were. Maybe it's down to accents but were I like nothing changes.

You read them the same

No.

you say them the same

No.

the only difference is the look.

Annnnnd...no. The dictionary disagrees with you: [weer], [wur], and [wair]. Three different pronunciations for three different things.

Does me using the wrong were make the whole sentance totally illegible? Can you not understand what I am trying to convey?

"Sentence". Using the wrong word is a horrible little speed bump in the middle of a sentence. It's maybe a quarter of a second of my time wasted going back and reparsing the sentence so it makes sense, but the time adds up. You are wasting the readers' time.

Anyway, the topic. Maybe some people would like to talk about that?

You're the one who started going on about this.

You would have used your quarter of a second to further develop your cure for cancer, I assume?

You say were like war? Talk about putting all kinds of emphasis on things. Like I just said it's probably down to accents since all I have heard all my life is the same 1 pronunciation for the same 3 words, I even talk to Aussies and they say it the same way for each.

No, I never started this, look for the Stephen Fry clip from youtube and look who I quoted. Also, give it a watch ... I have listened to it about 8 times.

EDIT: It says in that clip even Oscar Wilde never cared much for this kind of thing, or atleast it is implied.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

The verb is BREATHE. The word BREATH is a noun. A BREATH is what you take when you BREATHE.

The abbreviation of YOU ARE is YOU'RE. The word you used, YOUR, is the second person possessive pronoun. To illustrate: YOUR mother was a hamster and YOU'RE an elderberry!

Your is the same as you're. There is also just one "were" "to" (unless with the number) and "there"

There is also just one "were"

Well, Where and Were are pronounced differently.
So... Ya know.

{shaggy}'twasn't me!{/shaggy}

 

[Count Igor]

ThingIaccidentlydeleted

..
Woops.
Sorry about that...

 

[Urgh76]

Since OP's avatar is Pikachu, the answer should be obvious

 

[Kinokohatake]

As I read this, I am reading a thread on a conspiracy website saying monkeys were turned into humans through alien meddling. Hilarity.

Anyway. While I don't believe Genesis outright, I believe in evolution even less. Just my opinion.

 

[RobCoxxy]

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?

If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.

That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.

I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.

Pretty much this. OP's idea of evolution is a bit retarded at best.
I've seen plenty of religious types just poo-poo religion as the idea that everything we see now is the result of retard mutant babies.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

The key here is time and large populations. Lots of time.

This means that specimens with a longer neck will have a slightly higher rate of survival, and will therefore have a higher chance of procreating successfully.
Over the course of thousands upon thousands of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.

And then you have giraffes.

Thats the bit I am not getting. You have these horsies trying to much on the bottom leaves, they all have necks roughly the same size (your not going to be having one horse with no neck and one 20 foot long), are the females walking round thinking "oooh his neck is 1 mm longer than all the others, I shall mate with him!" and the males are thinking "yeah, shes into me but her neck is short as hell! Now her over there has a really long neck but shes not a looker!".

Ok so all the horses with slightly shorter necks got no food, so they died before they reproduced, this happens over and over again. It is not about the animals "knowing" anything, it is about that creatures slight advantage allowing it to survive long enough to pass on their genetic material.

thought they taught this in school....(or are you from a southern american state lol lol lol)

 

[Aurgelmir]

As I read this, I am reading a thread on a conspiracy website saying monkeys were turned into humans through alien meddling. Hilarity.

Anyway. While I don't believe Genesis outright, I believe in evolution even less. Just my opinion.

Care to elaborate? What is it you do not believe about Evolution? We already established a few pages ago that Evolution is NOT a religion, it is based of factual findings in nature. Just go out and read about it, there is next to none competing theories to Evolution (No creationism is NOT a competing theory), so from science point of view Evolution is true until a better theory comes along (That is what we call a Paradigm and a Paradigm Shift)

You can choose to not accept Evolution, but without any reasoning behind it you are just being ignorant.


But alas we humans would much more like to believe in the outright implausible than the plausible...

So yeah please explain WHY you do not believe in science, because that is exactly what you are doing when you say you don't believe in evolution.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

You say were like war?

Sweet pogo-sticking Jesus, no. "War" uses a whole other vowel sound. Look:

we're /wɪər/
were /wər/
where /wɛər/ (optionally aspirated: /ʰwɛər/)
war /wɔr/

(IPA pronunciation guide here [http://www.dicts.info/ipa.php].)

 

[Aurgelmir]

Um why has dis discussion turned into a Discussion about language?
If it was about the evolution of languages it could almost fit the topic, but yo uare discussing pronunciations... sort of off topic.

 

[omega 616]

You say were like war?

Sweet pogo-sticking Jesus, no. "War" uses a whole other vowel sound. Look:

we're /wɪər/
were /wər/
where /wɛər/ (optionally aspirated: /ʰwɛər/)
war /wɔr/

(IPA pronunciation guide here [http://www.dicts.info/ipa.php].)

That makes no sense what so ever. Look at the upside down e = "about, animal, problem, circus " with the exception of about and animal non of them are pronounced the same.

Still all sound the same to me! I guess you don't know what an opinion is, huh?

Like this matters anyway, nobody is going to change this whole bull shit system anyway.

Having the exact same sounding word with 3 different spellings to mean 3 marginally different things.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

You're either completely and utterly tone-deaf to vowel sounds or you're trolling. Either way, I'm done.

(Oh, and the usage of "we're", "were", and "where" isn't an opinion. It's the way the language works. Okay, now I'm done.)

 

[Shoqiyqa]

... 3 marginally different things.

The plural past tense of the verb "to be", armed conflict between nations or other large gangs, a single word meaning either "in the place that" or "in what place" and an abbreviation of "we are" ..... are marginally different in your world?

 

[omega 616]

You're either completely and utterly tone-deaf to vowel sounds or you're trolling. Either way, I'm done.

(Oh, and the usage of "we're", "were", and "where" isn't an opinion. It's the way the language works. Okay, now I'm done.)

Or like I have said three times, it might just be down to accents.

I am well aware that my views on this won't change anything, I am also aware people such as your self will always be angry that I even suggest change from our mongrel of a language, even though I bet you mess it up just as much as me.

Can you honestly say you obey every single rule of the English language? When was the last time you said "whom" for example? And what about all the ones mentioned in Stephen Frys language clip, disinterested and uninterested, infer and imply, fewer and less? Do you use effect and affect in the correct ways? I doubt it.

... 3 marginally different things.

The plural past tense of the verb "to be", armed conflict between nations or other large gangs, a single word meaning either "in the place that" or "in what place" and an abbreviation of "we are" ..... are marginally different in your world?

I am going to ignore everything up to "a single word" 'cos I have no idea what your talking about.

Notice how in both of your speech marks you used the word "place"? That's why I said marginally different, rather than exactly the same.

But like I have said a millions times the subject matter is not the English language.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

The plural past tense of the verb "to be", armed conflict between nations or other large gangs, a single word meaning either "in the place that" or "in what place" and an abbreviation of "we are" ..... are marginally different in your world?

You might as well give up. It's like trying to argue politics with a cat...except the cat will eventually admit he's wrong.

 

[Communist partisan]

I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?

Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?

How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?

How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

It exist one perfect explanation as long as you accept it, Life's a bich.