The Fiction of "Fact"

omfg

The adaptation of any being to better suit itself for an environment IS evolution. So if you think that way, you must believe in evolution correct?

0 Replies

Remember, Mr. astounding said he believes, I shouldn't believe, he has the ability to be intelligent.

0 Replies

I don't remember any sci-fi magazine "harvester."

0 Replies

it's published by the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association. maybe it has an SF section.

0 Replies

astounding wrote:

Why should I believe it, what makes you guys so whole heartedly believe in this?

They call it science.

They call it education.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some of us studied science as part of our education.

0 Replies

Quote:

astounding wrote:
Why should I believe it, what makes you guys so whole heartedly believe in this?

Same reason as you mate.It's dead easy.It enables you to make a lot of noise with very little effort.The fact that it is pointless is neither here nor there.It's you making a noise is what matters.

Surely you can see a simple thing like that?

0 Replies

Spendius my old friend, how the **** are you?
Is the theory of evolution unconvincing to you?

0 Replies

Oh, spendi doesn't dispute evolution, the horse he rides is saddled with the notion that luddite social influences should be at once immune from and granted equal weght with the realities science has disclosed.

0 Replies

Hmm...
For some, to a fair degree already, technology via science is so pervasive as to be somewhat invisible and lacking in discrete social notions. If Spendi was Japanese...........

Who thinks about all the science behind even the common pencil?

0 Replies

If spendi were Japanese, he would have likely come up with Godzilla and surprised the hell out of us.

Yes, the pencil is a simple thing, perhaps the pencil sharpener a bit more complicated. I'm sure God had already invented the pencil and the pencil sharpener up there in heaven so he could jot down his daily diary of what was going on down on his little project, Earth. I do hope he thought of inventing paper! Or maybe he's just writing everything down on a cloud.

He created Washington State as a beautiful Eden, then Washington DC so he'd have a place for all the jackals and buffons to occupy.

0 Replies

astounding wrote:

I answered you chumly, I believe I said you shouldn't.

Harvester that is crap man and you know it. The whole evolution in a toilet bowl is quite simply this. ADAPTATIONS TO ONES CHANGING ENVIRONMENT plain and simple. Here is a test for you. If evolution exists, why doesn't a female smokers embryo develop immunities to carcinogens? wouldn't, if evolution holds true, an embryo develop stronger anti-carcinigenic tissue of some sort or something?

Again and again and again you demonstrate a level of understanding about the theory of evolution that one would expect from a 12 year old. How dare you attempt to discredit something about which you understand so little? How dare you spit upon so many years of patient study and careful conservative science with your ridiculous ignorance? Worst of all, how dare you pretend that there is any real controversy about this? There is not. Evolution is an accepted reality like gravity and cancer. That these things are not completely understood in no way makes them impossible.

Yet, here you are saying "Which is easier for me to accept?...an instant, magic explanation (no proof, no effort required) or a common place explanation (lots of proof, lots of effort required)? It's obvious isn't it. Choose magic, problem solved ...next !!!

Speculate all you like in "Spirituality & Religion" but here in Science, you got NOTHIN" to contribute.

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

Oh, spendi doesn't dispute evolution, the horse he rides is saddled with the notion that luddite social influences should be at once immune from and granted equal weght with the realities science has disclosed.

Nearly timber. I don't go so far as "immune".Inhibited to a degree, varying under certain contingencies, is more my position.

It's yours too if you would think about it more carefully but I'll admit that it renders discussion a mite complex rather than this black/white stuff you're all so seemingly fond of.

0 Replies

What is black/white spendi, is that creationism/ID-iocy is not science, it is superstition.

0 Replies

Nah timber.

More like-It is/No it isn't/Oh yes it is/Oh no it jolly well isn't/ etc etc for ever and ever going round in circles and,in effect,out of the loop.

You might be surprised to learn that I see similarities in this debate to the "Great Eastern Schism" of the 11th century except that we have an organised judicial system to keep the fragments partially civilised.

But that's too simple as well.

0 Replies

astounding wrote:

I answered you chumly, I believe I said you shouldn't.

Harvester that is crap man and you know it. The whole evolution in a toilet bowl is quite simply this. ADAPTATIONS TO ONES CHANGING ENVIRONMENT plain and simple. Here is a test for you. If evolution exists, why doesn't a female smokers embryo develop immunities to carcinogens? wouldn't, if evolution holds true, an embryo develop stronger anti-carcinigenic tissue of some sort or something?

Because Mr. A, the life-span of a bacteria is much shorter than a human. Individual organisms don't evolve. A species does, over generations. Since the life-span of a bacteria is so short, evolution happens far quicker in bacteria.

0 Replies

eorl

you think this is no great controversy? It is probably one of the largest and longest running controversies ever to exist. Have you not seen all the little fish magnets on the back of cars, some with feet and darwins name in the middle, some with the fish eating the one with feet?

Wolf-Odonnell

Granted bacteria life is short, but humans have been smoking a long time, why have a family who constantly smokes, and passes it down from generation to generation, ...where is their evolving better cancer fighting agents? or immunities even to the stuff?

0 Replies

astounding wrote:

eorl

you think this is no great controversy? It is probably one of the largest and longest running controversies ever to exist. Have you not seen all the little fish magnets on the back of cars, some with feet and darwins name in the middle, some with the fish eating the one with feet?

It isn't a scientific controversy. The controversy here is only cultural. It's because some people aren't willing to accept that their religion is no better than others.

Quote:

Wolf-Odonnell

Granted bacteria life is short, but humans have been smoking a long time, why have a family who constantly smokes, and passes it down from generation to generation, ...where is their evolving better cancer fighting agents? or immunities even to the stuff?

I suddenly realised that smoking doesn't naturally select against individuals. Cancer primarly affects the elderly. Natural selection primarily effects an individual's ability to reproduce. Since the elderly are beyond reproductive age, there is no need for them to evolve anti-cancer phenotypes.

0 Replies

What a teleological wowser that is Wolf.

If you study evolution in bacteria and suchlike is it not the case that the researcher is providing the environment under which they evolve and thus possibly skews the result.

Quote:

Natural selection primarily effects an individual's ability to reproduce.

I'm not convinced about that. I presume you mean under conditions you can envisage.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Nah timber.

More like-It is/No it isn't/Oh yes it is/Oh no it jolly well isn't/ etc etc for ever and ever going round in circles and,in effect,out of the loop.

You might be surprised to learn that I see similarities in this debate to the "Great Eastern Schism" of the 11th century except that we have an organised judicial system to keep the fragments partially civilised.

But that's too simple as well.

It's more like - It is/ No it isn't because science has rules that must be followed and ID doesn't follow those rules/ Yes it is/ No it isn't because ID doesn't use the scientific method. Science requires you to test your hypothesis with experimentation/ Yes it is / No because science.........

One side is explaining their position and the other is just promoting it without support or logic

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What a teleological wowser that is Wolf.

If you study evolution in bacteria and suchlike is it not the case that the researcher is providing the environment under which they evolve and thus possibly skews the result.

It is still an environment that the organism has to adapt to.

Quote:

Quote:
Natural selection primarily effects an individual's ability to reproduce.

I'm not convinced about that. I presume you mean under conditions you can envisage.

No. Natural selection always effects an individual's ability to reproduce, primarily through killing them before they have the chance to do so.

0 Replies

The Fiction of "Fact"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know