Conquer Club

Evolution

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Evolution

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:57 pm

puppydog85 wrote:lol frigidus. Just look at my posts (you know the one you responded to). I made a very specific argument there. No need to go all straw man on me.


I'm not trying to go straw man on anything, I just didn't see you make any specific arguments. Looking through your post, this is as specific as it gets:

puppydog85 wrote:punctuated equilibrium= "We have no proof so let's such say that no proof is our proof".


I'm not really sure what the "proof" part of this statement is referring to, but if you take issue with the idea of punctuated equilibrium I guess I could defend that. The reason that change occurs quickly (relatively speaking of course, it's still pretty slow by human reckoning) is that it is usually associated with a change in the environment that a particular species resides in. A substantial enough shift in the surroundings can make what were previously advantageous traits obsolete or even harmful to individuals within a species, and so those traits are phased out as those that possess them fail to pass those traits on. More often than not, this rapid evolution is associated with mass death among the species.

What are your views on punctuated equilibrium?
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby puppydog85 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:34 pm

Try the first post that I wrote. And then your response back to it. That is what I was referring to. I am aware of what is meant by punctuated equilibrium , but a refresher course never hurts (well NIMS refreshers hurt my head but other than that I am ok). I can respond in more detail as to what I meant but I like to first know that the person I am talking to has some idea of what I am saying.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Evolution

Postby GreecePwns on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:37 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.


I'm assuming you've never heard of fossils?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Evolution

Postby puppydog85 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:58 pm

Yawn. The sarcasm is completely blown when it is obvious you don't know what you are commenting on. Here it is in a syllogism people.

Evolution is built on survival of the fittest
Survival of the fittest is not science (ie. is not falsifiable)

Therefore, Evolution is not science.

Please keep future comments to something that criticizes my premises. I am open to being wrong on them; however, straw men and total red herrings (or just plain cluelessness) don't help or advance the conversation.

But I cannot resist this. The whole theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed because prominent evolutionists stated that the fossil record did not support the current theory of evolution (in other words, there was no fossil proof)
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Neoteny on Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:04 pm

Win.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution

Postby comic boy on Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:31 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Yawn. The sarcasm is completely blown when it is obvious you don't know what you are commenting on. Here it is in a syllogism people.

Evolution is built on survival of the fittest
Survival of the fittest is not science (ie. is not falsifiable)

Therefore, Evolution is not science.

Please keep future comments to something that criticizes my premises. I am open to being wrong on them; however, straw men and total red herrings (or just plain cluelessness) don't help or advance the conversation.

But I cannot resist this. The whole theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed because prominent evolutionists stated that the fossil record did not support the current theory of evolution (in other words, there was no fossil proof)


Congratulations on proving yourself an utter moron , your pastor must be extremely proud !
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Evolution

Postby GreecePwns on Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:51 pm

puppydog85 wrote:But I cannot resist this. The whole theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed because prominent evolutionists stated that the fossil record did not support the current theory of evolution (in other words, there was no fossil proof)

Proof of what exactly? If a species evolves quickly (and in smaller populations or during mass deaths this is much easier), there will be much smaller fossil evidence because the inferior and superior genepools would not have coexisted long.

What do you think? All species must have evolved graudally? What explains the sudden changes in the fossil record some populations then?

I don't see how this is a damning indictment of evolution.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Evolution

Postby Army of GOD on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:01 pm

man, for smart people you guys are idiots
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7191
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby puppydog85 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:21 pm

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record"

Ok, this is really a side topic and I don't view it as a main argument against evolution. You are the one who brought up the fossil record and I pointed out that according to highly respected evolutionists the supporting fossil record is, and I quote, "virtually nonexistent". Which means we need to discuss other things as "proof" for evolution.

And for the record, the total lack of civility from some people just might convince me that we did descend from apes after all (judging from their behavior, not so very long ago). And I am not talking to you Greece, at least you engage somewhat with my points (albeit not directly).
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Neoteny on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:29 pm

Pow!
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:41 pm

comic boy wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
carlsagansghost wrote:You are very full of hate. Maybe you just let other people (e.g. religious people) live their lives in the peace you wish them to leave you to yours?
Probably because folks denying evolution won't leave us OUR peace, but keep invading our schools, texbooks.... not mention highly distorting reality to do so.

Oh, and this is most definitely not about "religion" in general.. or even Christianity. It is about a small group of Christians who flat out deny evidence and a larger group that just doesn't bother much with either science or religion and therefore may answer poll questions either supporting or denying evolution just depending on the wording and recent news.


Its not just Christian groups , Orthodox Jews and a large part of the Muslim world refuse to accommodate anything that challenges the literal truth of their creation myths.

No, most Jews, even Orthodox Jews have historically accepted Evolution, just as they have not only accepted, but been heavy advancers of science, historically. The young earth movement is fairly recent, and small.

Per Islam.. what you see is a society that once celebrated learning, lead the world in learning throwing it by the wayside for various reasons. (don't want to get into a discussion of fundamentalism itself today). It is not so much that they disdain evolutionary theory as that a segment disdains essentially ALL thinking outside of their holy book, and most particularly anything associated with "western" society. To the extent evolution is specifically reviled, it is that association.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution

Postby GreecePwns on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:44 pm

puppydog85 wrote:"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record"

Ok, this is really a side topic and I don't view it as a main argument against evolution. You are the one who brought up the fossil record and I pointed out that according to highly respected evolutionists the supporting fossil record is, and I quote, "virtually nonexistent". Which means we need to discuss other things as "proof" for evolution.

And for the record, the total lack of civility from some people just might convince me that we did descend from apes after all (judging from their behavior, not so very long ago). And I am not talking to you Greece, at least you engage somewhat with my points (albeit not directly).


Your emphasis on one sentence in a wikipedia article does not prove your point.

It is clear from the fossil record that, in some cases, species evolved gradually. It is also clear from the fossil record that, in some cases, species evolved quickly. These two theories in conflict does not in some way make evolutionary theory as a whole "rigged so as not to have a negative outcome." These are both clearly observed phenomena. If it were "rigged so as not to have a negative outcome," there would be no such observations.

If that were so, we'd be seing totally random changes. Which isn't what this theory is stating. If anything, it is an enhancement of gradualism, allowing for more rapid rates of change in small populations or extreme genetic mutations or other special cases.

I am not trying to troll against religion, but for example the explanation "God works in mysterious ways," or "God created man in his image," is rigged so as not to have a negative outcome. They are unfalsifiable because there is no observable way to prove them.
Last edited by GreecePwns on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:47 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.

You are incorrect on a couple of fronts, here.

"Survival of the fittest"a nd natural selection are just ONE factor that has steared evolution. Also, there is no requirement that what develops is truly better. There is a general assumption that species will tend to be "more fit" over time, but (aside from other issues) the most basic problem is that our Earth itself is not static.

The "Capstone" of natural selection and, per your ideas above, evolution would be species very, very highly adapted to their environment. In reality, those species are often the ones most likely to suffer extinction, because they lack the very resiliance that allows what some try to call more "primative" species to adapt. This calls into question the very concept of evolution =superiority.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:50 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Try the first post that I wrote.


Ah, OK.

puppydog85 wrote:Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.


Natural selection definitely has a negative outcome, mainly because it is a conclusion based on three premises. Prove any of these premises false and the conclusion is invalidated:

1. There is variation of certain traits within a species

2. Traits are passed on from parent to offspring

3. There is competition between individuals of a particular species over survival and reproduction


These premises are pretty rock solid, but that doesn't mean they are unfalsifiable. If it was demonstrated, for instance, that traits were not passed on in any way from parent to child then natural selection would be proven flawed.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby puppydog85 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:56 pm

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

I never said that the fossil record was "rigged so as not to have a negative outcome" I said that about survival of the fittest, something different all together. I am thinking now that you don't understand my point so I will later tonight give a longer explanation.

I would pounce on your 3rd point about no observable way because I can spin that into a philosophical discussion about empiricism, but that would be hijacking the thread. Maybe I will start my own and discuss that specifically. For now, I will just say that I don't think all proof must be "observable", if by that you mean empirical. Thus it is no problem for me to offer non-empirical evidence for God. You on the other hand (at least I would think so) want all evidence to be empirical which means that my very first point would be utterly damning.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Evolution

Postby puppydog85 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:59 pm

Natural selection is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the specific - survival of the fittest -. How can you know what is the fittest? The ones who survive? So we can never know that maybe the fittest died. We just assume that they must be the fittest.

That is what I was talking about. But I really am not all that well read up on Darwinian evolution and if I am wrong about that being a central tenet, I will just have to be content with other arguments against it.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Neoteny on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:02 pm

puppydog85 wrote:But I really am not all that well read up on Darwinian evolution


This thought never even occurred to me.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:04 pm

puppydog85 wrote:"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record"

Ok, this is really a side topic and I don't view it as a main argument against evolution. You are the one who brought up the fossil record and I pointed out that according to highly respected evolutionists the supporting fossil record is, and I quote, "virtually nonexistent". Which means we need to discuss other things as "proof" for evolution.

And .

No, that's not actually what is being stated there, but to understand that, I have to debunk a couple of assumptions you seem to be making.

First, Darwin is credited with being the first to publish a concept we now call "evolution" and to talk about things like natural selection and humanity's relation to other animals in a historic biological way. He began a whole line of thinking and study, but that does not mean he is the master of all evolution. Science just does not work that way. That would be like saying that becuase the first car invented could only go a few miles per hour, there is just no possibility of cars exceeding 200 mph. A LOT of what Darwin thought to be true was just wrong, because he did not know most of what we know today. He did not know what we do about genetics and mutations, did not know about techtonic plates or the various die-offs we have had on Earth, etc, etc, etc. He estimated the age of the Earth to be much, much younger than we know it to be.

He did think that natural selection, alone, could be the reason for species change. We now know that is just not the case. That is what is meant above. If natural selection were the only factor in evolution, then the Earth would have to be much, much older than we see it to be, even now. BUT... we also know that straight natural selection as Darwin envisioned is not all that is in effect. I talked about this quite a bit in a few of the threads I mentioned above. Right now, I am rather tired (yeah, its early but I did not get much sleep last night...). I can't get into the whole speil, but let me give you a couple of examples.

Among deer, its usually the "biggest/baddest" buck that has the most progeny... natural selection would tend to favor that size, then. However, its complicated by a few factors. First, sometimes while the big buck is fending off his rivals, a scrawny little "hanger on" might just sneak in and "do his thing". Also, while being bigger and heftier might lead to more mating potential, it won't help much if he encounters a big rig on a road crossing.. or gets trapped behind a landslide, isolated by a flood or even just gets cut off from the females by a really big tree. A LOT of events might keep that big buck from really passing on his genes per the "natural selection" model. BUT.. that's not even the whole story. Let's say that there is a drought (cannot imagine why that might come to mind, here ;) ). Anyway, in this drought there is little grass available. It could be that the large buck is able to find and defend the better resources and still has the advantage, but it could also be that he needs more food to maintain his bulk, uses more energy to move to find food and, ultimately does not survive as well as the "scrawny buck" that is somehow able to thrive on less food.

More complicated.. all of that can happen at the same time, in different areas or (sometimes) even in essentially the same area.

Add in a lot of the genetic stuff mentioned above (there is a question about whether gene mutation is actually increased or whether its just that the variations have more of a chance of being noticed/surviving, etc. in times of extreme change) and you get a series of relative static periods, where natural selection can be said to essentially dominate, interrupted by periods of very rapid change.. where natural selection, but also other factors are put into play. ALL of that is very much within the fossil record. To dismiss it, means you just have not studied the subject at all, not really. You may have studied what young earth people try to claim is said by evolutionists, but you have not actually studied evolution or what science and geology really prove.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:08 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Natural selection is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the specific - survival of the fittest -. How can you know what is the fittest? The ones who survive? So we can never know that maybe the fittest died. We just assume that they must be the fittest.

That is what I was talking about. But I really am not all that well read up on Darwinian evolution and if I am wrong about that being a central tenet, I will just have to be content with other arguments against it.

Looks like you skipped my post above.

The fact is that natural selection is just one thing that happens... and a part that is often left off of the theory is "all other factors being held static". That is, its generally understood that a trait will provide higher breeding ability and be passed on, but only in comparison to other similar individuals and only when the system itself is held static, the same. In truth, the natural world is constantly in flux, so the real, ultimate survivor are not the highly adapted species, but often the more "primitive" species. We see horseshoe crabs and alligators, not Tricerotops.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:09 pm

puppydog85 wrote:Natural selection is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the specific - survival of the fittest -. How can you know what is the fittest? The ones who survive? So we can never know that maybe the fittest died. We just assume that they must be the fittest.


Well, survival of the fittest is really just a poetic way of saying natural selection. You're correct, though, in pointing out that the term "fittest" is largely meaningless. It's a major misconception that evolution is the process of a species becoming "better", but really it is just a species adapting to the environment it is currently in. If you take a "successful" species from the area you live in and put it in the middle of the Arctic ocean it suddenly doesn't seem nearly as fit as it did before.

Ultimately, the turn of phrase "survival of the fittest" is just a term that various philosophies have latched on to in order to justify their beliefs. It isn't really meaningful.
Last edited by Frigidus on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby Symmetry on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:10 pm

Indeed, and it's kind of why it's so dumb to equate evolutionary theory with Darwin. He was one of the main thinkers behind evolution (though he too stood on the shoulders of giants), but it's not as if Biologists have just been rolling out PhDs saying nothing more than "I'm 100% behind Chuck".

The field has, for want of a better word, evolved. Sadly many people still consider it "Darwinism".
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:11 pm

Symmetry wrote:it's not as if Biologists have just been rolling out PhDs saying nothing more than "I'm 100% behind Chuck".


Oh shit, now I'm going to have to entirely rewrite my thesis.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:11 pm

jay_a2j wrote:I'm not going to bother to "destroy" evolution. It was pretty much done in a thread I started years ago.

Hi jay. Fun to hear from you again, but I can see you are up to your old tricks.

You proved absolutely nothing, except that you did not really understand evolution. You "disproved" false ideas some young earth people try to claim is evolution, not real evolutionary theory.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Evolution

Postby chang50 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:18 pm

yang guize wrote:it is not true. inbreeding in your family is made illegal in the west because two people with very similar dna have a higher chance to pass on a genetic disease to their child if they have it, because they are passing on a much greater number of similar genes.

also, someone said i am an athiest which i am not. i am buddhist.


Some Buddhists are atheists,my wife for one!
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Evolution

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:19 pm

Frigidus wrote:
Symmetry wrote:it's not as if Biologists have just been rolling out PhDs saying nothing more than "I'm 100% behind Chuck".


Oh shit, now I'm going to have to entirely rewrite my thesis.

Since when does an economist publish in evolutionary science? :?
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl