Evolution

[Shoqiyqa]

... feral cats in the UK are rarely pure feral and therefore regarded as endangered.

Wildcats. Feral cats are domestic cats that have gone wild, and are a threat to wildcats.

... you've said evolution has never been demonstrated in a lab when it has, ...

Nah, labradors are thick. Alsatian-collie crosses are the way to go.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

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.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

... error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. ... testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: ... F=ma, ... PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, ...

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!

I think the problem here is this:

When you say "it's only a theory" people assume that some rant about creationism will come next.

Also: see the bits of what I quoted that I quoted again above. I've trimmed it a little to try to make it even more obvious why I quoted that little bit of the huge page to which I linked when I quoted that little bit of it.

3) I believe in natural selection; that the environment allows beneficial traits to be promoted in animals, but fail to understand how that is automatically a part of evolution or has anything to do with the creation of new species, even over however long evolution is now thought to have taken.

Try reading the rest of the thread. I think it's been explained.

If you're interested, there is a three-part series by an evangelist preacher called Michael Penfold which explains why Darwinism is both scienfically and philosophically (his words not mine) bankrupt.

I have no interest whatsoever in what some weirdo wearing a black dress with his shirt collar turned backwards and out to recruit new members to his bizarre cult has to say on the subject, especially if he's peddling a bunch of hokum closely related to that peddled by the Hitler Youth veteran who says he's allowed to hand out licences to sexually abuse kids.

 

[Ben Hussong]

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.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

... error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. ... testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: ... F=ma, ... PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, ...

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!

I think the problem here is this:

When you say "it's only a theory" people assume that some rant about creationism will come next.

Also: see the bits of what I quoted that I quoted again above. I've trimmed it a little to try to make it even more obvious why I quoted that little bit of the huge page to which I linked when I quoted that little bit of it.

3) I believe in natural selection; that the environment allows beneficial traits to be promoted in animals, but fail to understand how that is automatically a part of evolution or has anything to do with the creation of new species, even over however long evolution is now thought to have taken.

Try reading the rest of the thread. I think it's been explained.

If you're interested, there is a three-part series by an evangelist preacher called Michael Penfold which explains why Darwinism is both scienfically and philosophically (his words not mine) bankrupt.

I have no interest whatsoever in what some weirdo wearing a black dress with his shirt collar turned backwards and out to recruit new members to his bizarre cult has to say on the subject, especially if he's peddling a bunch of hokum closely related to that peddled by the Hitler Youth veteran who says he's allowed to hand out licences to sexually abuse kids.

That's a little bit rude, I think we can try to be civil in this thread, even when we have big disagreements.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

Well to say this again Gravity is not a theory it is fundamental force of nature. What causes it and what is actually is is a theory. This is why it is called Newton's Theory of Gravitation which was expanded on in Einstein's Relativity. It is a force because we have an equation for it which is an inverse square law if I remember right I might have to check log tables.

Since Evolution is a theory it is subject to change and improvements. I just want people to stop taking it is as absolute fact when it is not. It is scientific fact because it is generally accepted by the scientific community.

snip

I am going to go through this one more time. Saying it is just a theory does not mean I am refuting it. I am saying it is not absolute fact as I would like people to stop treating it as such. All theories change and side step through time. [HEADING=2] I AM NOT SAYING IT IS WRONG OR REFUTING IT.[/HEADING]

I understand the bones of it and general gist of it but not the finer details as I don't do biology I am physics man. Once again yes it is SCIENTIFIC FACT because it is generally accepted by the scientific community. I understand. The fact that light was a beam of particles and then a wave was also fact but now we know that is wrong. Well it is both really so we call them photons as it is not a classic wave or particle.

Also a hypothesis or conjecture is something we observe and think might be true. A theory is something that has been tested and vetted and has become widely accept but is not absolute true 100% fact(which is why they change a little). A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

The difference between a law and a theory is a theory can be disputed, changed, improved and proven wrong. This is all I am saying.

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.

snip

Well that is all I am saying. I know what most people are saying but just because I say it is only a theory does not mean I am refuting it. I am saying that it is not absolute fact and subject to change. It is possible(but highly unlikely) it could be dead wrong to a degree like Newtons Inverse Square Gravity equation(although for general use it is fine).

This is all I wanted to say. I don't like when people go on like Evolution is complete. As there are plenty of people who have quoted me without reading past the first page and I have to restate the same thing several times. This is all I have been trying to say.

 

[Count Igor]

There is also just one "were"

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

 

[omega 616]

There is also just one "were"

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

Yeah, that silent H is a killer. Same as knife, that K always gets me.

Seriously, Were not talking about the evolution of words or the English language.

 

[Count Igor]

There is also just one "were"

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

Yeah, that silent H is a killer. Same as knife, that K always gets me.

Seriously, Were not talking about the evolution of words or the English language.

Oh, you meant We're and were. Right.

Edit: Wait, that makes no sense...
Look, I was just pointing out that you were wrong in that sense.
You don't pronounce the K, but the H affects the word.
Where is like Ware
Were is like... well, wer.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Isn't that why scientist are trying to find a second earth somewhere out there? They are desperate to proove that it could have happened twice.

I think this, this accumulation of coincidences leading to a wonderful living world like we have, is proof for a concept behind it.

Sorry but I skipped through the bad analogies and such to pick out a lovely corn of bullshit. The reason scientists look for other S3 planets is several:

1. Space exploration - a pre existing S3 planet will be invaluable if we traverse space in the future.
2. Origin of life - !THIS IS NOT TO FIND OUT IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE! This relates to the Primordial Ooze hypothesis of how life started on Earth, if life is present where we find water in the same state as it is on Earth (something that is near impossible to test on earth alone due to the sheer amount of time and possible contamination aspects involved in such tests)
3. Curiousity - Earth like planets are pretty rare and fill us with thoughts of Star Wars like sci-fi universes so the prospect of finding one is always exciting.

Why do you insult people you don't know with things like 'lovely corn of bullshit'?
Does it make your words more true?
I would never dare to say it's bullshit what all of you are saying, its a discussion, not a war.
All I wanted to claim was: Don't be that narrowminded. There are so many opinions out there, not only creationism and Darwinism.

And as far as I know, and have informed myself, talked to scientist, what do you think, this curiosity comes from?
Just because people are like this?
Why do you think the topic of evolution leads oftentimes to this point where creationists start to scream and call it a lie?
Because thats what science is all about. We are curious to learn the rules of our world, because we wanna understand it. Understand what we are, where we come from, and why we are here.

You can never say that you're right. You can say with the theory I have, I can make pretty good prognoses for what is going to happen. You can use them, as it is stated above. But as I said befor people used the theorie of the earth being centre of the universe to navigate for hundreds of years. So are you sure that the mechanism behind what we see is exactly what we assume?

Columbus once discovered America, but he told till his death he was in India. He never knew that there is a whole continent in between and it is the same with us.
The only thing we can learn from history is, that the next generation is looking down on the former, laughing at what they stated to be 'scientific truth'.
Do you really think our generation will be an exception?

If we go back to the beginning of the thread the question was, how can tiny little mutation lead to variety as we do have?
Even if we say at the moment we can state, there are mutation and species are not stady stayng the same all over the centuries, I cannot answer this question.
I learned at university that most of the mutation which occur are either repaired by cell mechanism and never show up, or they are lethal, or almost insignificant.
Why there are some that make that big diffence, I do not know.

How you managed to turn 5 sentences from me into 5 paragraphs from you is pretty astonishing.

1. I called it bullshit because it was bullshit, you said scientists look for earthlike planets to prove evolution true, which is wrong.

2. Creationists react that way because they've rejected science and argue from a position of dogma rather than evidence and logic.

3. Yes. I. Know.
3b. Using the stars to navigate and believing the Earth is the centre of the universe don't always go together. Star navigation methods worked.

4. Please stop using analogies and straw men. Columbus wasn't 150 years of scientific study that gathered a vast amount of evidence to back up its claims. We don't laugh at a previous generation's knowledge, unless they rejected a hypotheses that has become common knowledge.

5. It's not just tiny mutations that cause evolution to occur, as many other people have already pointed out. Yes you have heard correctly that many mutations are repaired or lead to cell suicide, senescence or cancer.

However, this doesn't happen 100% of the time.

Sudden origins: a general mechanism of evolution based on stress protein concentration and rapid environmental change.
Maresca B, Schwartz JH.

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy. [email protected]
Abstract
A major theme in Darwinian evolutionary theory is that novelty arises through a process in which organisms and their features are gradually transformed. Morgan provided Darwinism and the evolutionary synthesis with the idea that minor mutations produce the minuscule morphological variations on which natural selection then acts, and that, although mutation is random, once a process of gradual genetic modification begins, it becomes directional and leads to morphological, and consequently organismal, transformation. In contrast, studies on the role of cell membrane physical states in regulating the expression of stress proteins in response to environmental shifts indicate the existence of a downstream mechanism that prevents or corrects genetic change (i.e., maintains "DNA homeostasis"). However, episodic spikes in various kinds of environmental stress that exceed an organism's cells' thresholds for expression of proper amounts of stress proteins responsible for protein folding (including stochastically occurring DNA repair) may increase mutation rate and genetic change, which in turn will alter the pattern of gene expression during development. If severe stress disrupts DNA homeostasis during meiosis (gametogenesis), this could allow for the appearance of significant mutational events that would otherwise be corrected or suppressed. In evolutionary terms, extreme spikes in environmental stress make possible the emergence of new genetic and consequent developmental and epigenetic networks, and thus also the emergence of potentially new morphological traits, without invoking geographic or other isolating mechanisms.

Sauce = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16437551

 

[omega 616]

There is also just one "were"

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

Yeah, that silent H is a killer. Same as knife, that K always gets me.

Seriously, Were not talking about the evolution of words or the English language.

Oh, you meant We're and were. Right.

Edit: Wait, that makes no sense...
Look, I was just pointing out that you were wrong in that sense.
You don't pronounce the K, but the H affects the word.
Where is like Ware
Were is like... well, wer.

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.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

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!

They're really, really, really not. They're three different parts of speech and three different words serving three different purposes. Your inability to distinguish them does not constitute a failure on the part of the English language.

 

[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!

They're really, really, really not. They're three different parts of speech and three different words serving three different purposes. Your inability to distinguish them does not constitute a failure on the part of the English language.

You read them the same*, you say them the same, the only difference is the look. Does me using the wrong were make the whole sentance totally illegible? Can you not understand what I am trying to convey? If you can then what does it matter how I spell it?

Language is all about getting you to understand me, if I can do that by using the wrong "were" why should there be other ways to spell it?

*By read I mean as, you read it in your head you say were. You don't say wHere like Stewie says "cool wHip".

It's not like I am saying something like "hippo going to the shops" were it makes no sense.

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

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Ben Hussong]

And this thread has become an evolutionary dead end

 

[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}