16
   

Who Believes in Evolution

 
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:57 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
In other words he's saying wingless creatures were in the habit of jumping out of trees and getting splatted until suddenly one was born with wings and was able to land safely!

He's absolutely NOT saying that. Nor is he implying that. He's offering a "gliding" behavior as a step toward flying, not a "splatting" behavior.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 07:58 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Man, you could well be absolutely right. Hope we can hear from somebody who actually knows for sure
Im not even slightly insulted by your attempt at derision. Ive only been working in the field of applied evolution for about 40 years now, maybe Ill get better with age .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:01 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Quote:
Senator Johnny McCain summed it up nicely- "I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see the hand of God there also
And He will fellate you if there are any votes in it for him.
I wonder whether the "hand of God "has any tats?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:06 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan"
GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet

Not fair. I am a registered Republican and one of the biggest advocates of the theory of evolution.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
you should recall that the present House Committee is an arm of the conservative wing of the GOP. Im only the bearer of the news.

Im sure gungasnake will be happy that evolution is being "debunked" by politicians
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 08:58 pm
Leaving the jump/splat thing aside for the moment, another Dawkins quote from Climbing M.I goes something like this regarding the evolution of the eye-
"It was not difficult for a lump of transparent jelly to spontaneously form"
Sorry I don't know the page number, i gave the book away before noting it down, i'll try to find the relevant excerpt online later.
Perhaps somebody who's got the book can explain in context what Dawks meant by "spontaneously form"?
Does he mean out of nowhere like magic or what?
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 10:33 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

...In other words he's saying wingless creatures were in the habit of jumping out of trees and getting splatted until suddenly one was born with wings and was able to land safely!...

Yes, I guess you can disprove any idea if you misrepresent it. Not much of an accomplishment. The absolute minimum requirement for informed debate is the ability to correctly state your opponent's position. Misstating it and then shooting it down signifies nothing.

For a trait to develop, there has to be a path to it such that at every stage of development, the creature bearing the trait is slightly better off than at the previous stage. The changes occur very slowly, step by step, over millions of years. The first stages, for instance, might have been under water, where creatures with certain shapes were able to glide through the water more easily. Evolution augmented this slowly and later, when they began spending part of their time on land, it may have translated to the ability to hop slightly farther. I don't know if that is the case, but the changes occur very, very slowly, in immense populations, over vast amounts of time. Hardly, creatures jumping to their doom until one is suddenly born with wings.

If you're going to disagree with us, disagree with what we actually believe.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:15 pm
Guys, guys, you can defend golden boy Dawkins all you want, but the fact remains he ADMITTED that his "explanation" of flight was just a guess-

My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees"
(Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable, p 113/14)


DICTIONARY 'GUESS'-
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:37 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Guys, guys, you can defend golden boy Dawkins all you want, but the fact remains he ADMITTED that his "explanation" of flight was just a guess-

My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees"
(Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable, p 113/14)


DICTIONARY 'GUESS'-
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess


His explanation for how some body feature historically actually did develop in some animal would have to be a guess, since we don't have the video, but the way evolution works is that the traits are built up in tiny increments over large amounts of time as numerous creatures compete with each other. Nobody who believes in evolution and actually understands the theory believes that one day a creature was suddenly born with wings. Don't misstate the theory.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 04:59 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
By merely averting your eyes from any actual evidence and just keep yelling "Nyah nyah nyah" is, of course, what I've grown to expect from most Creationist "debating"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 11:27 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Leaving the jump/splat thing aside for the moment, another Dawkins quote from Climbing M.I goes something like this regarding the evolution of the eye-
"It was not difficult for a lump of transparent jelly to spontaneously form"
Sorry I don't know the page number, i gave the book away before noting it down, i'll try to find the relevant excerpt online later.
Perhaps somebody who's got the book can explain in context what Dawks meant by "spontaneously form"?
Does he mean out of nowhere like magic or what?

I think the out of nowhere like magic is how you spontaneously created a quote claiming it was from Dawkins .
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 11:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im not even slightly insulted by your attempt at derision.
Not even just a tiny bit?

My apologies, I only realized the derisive component after posting

Quote:
Im waiting for someone to present a compelling argument about a lethal variation of the value of G


Yes, that's what I meant to say

Yet this fella doesn't seem to be a religious fanatic

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

So, anyone
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 11:51 am
The situation is WORSE than the Kos article makes out.

According to the original Pew poll, it is isn't just Republicans who don't know anything. Only 37% of Democrats (and 21% of Republicans) think humans evolved via natural processes. The rest of those who subscribe to the general idea of evolution think God is steering the process. On a positive note, the percentage of Republicans who think we evolved by natural processes has not declined significantly from its level of 23% in 2009. So it looks like the big change among Republicans is a shift from Old Earth to Young Earth creationism.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/01/FT_Belief_Trends1.png
See: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jan, 2014 05:27 pm
@Kolyo,
If you were to look at statistics the way I do..you would not believe the hype..
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2014 10:57 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet


How scientific a conclusion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2014 11:00 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Man, you could well be absolutely right. Hope we can hear from somebody who actually knows for sure
Im not even slightly insulted by your attempt at derision. Ive only been working in the field of applied evolution for about 40 years now, maybe Ill get better with age .


But it was a clever retort.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2014 11:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan"
GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet

Not fair. I am a registered Republican and one of the biggest advocates of the theory of evolution.


What does a small advocate argue?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2014 01:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan"
GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet

Not fair. I am a registered Republican and one of the biggest advocates of the theory of evolution.


What does a small advocate argue?

The same thing but less frequently.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2014 05:34 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
How scientific a conclusion.

I can only call em as I see em . When the House Committee on SCience and Technology really triws to pay attention to where science is in 2014, perhaps Ill change my mind about GOP "science".

Do you think the Committee chair should comment upon obvious misuses of the first amendment in public debates by its subcommittee chairs?
Seems like they oughta be setting an example.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2014 03:08 pm
@farmerman,
So you think it is scientific reasoning to conclude that the behavior of one individual can be interpreted as a characteristic of the broader group?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 02:02:05