Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.
In every sense of the word.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Are you then ...
a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
a mechanism guided by automatic controls
Or all/some of the above (which ones)?
A machine of the mind.
Interesting exchange between Saquist and the others here.
Saquist makes a blunder which gives away a fundamental lack of knowledge on his part. He is then informed of the truth by others. And then what? He spends post after post telling everybody that he doesn't need to listen to their opinions, that they are all entitled to draw whatever conclusions about him they want to (because he can't control that), and essentially that mere facts won't have any impact on his views because he is not required to listen to them.
A poor showing indeed from this self-described paragon of logic and reason.
Ignorance is a constant. You can never escape it. So try as you will to evoke the past to ridicule the present, I remain immune and unassailable by means of objectivity. There is no emotional investment here for me. Pleasure or pain, pride or prejudices...these are your tools not mine, I refuse to allow myself to beg-off self control for the indulgence of self righteousness, smugness and arrogance that seems to be a badge of honor here.
A blunder...is a mistake.
I asked a question! A question my Dear Watson. How can a QUESTION be a mistake? You challenge my logic but where is yours? I weather you spite and your hate but I will not tolerate your fallacies.
Hoo boy. Seriously?
Your pushing religious fairy tales don't fucking pretend your being logical. its an insult to all our intelligences
spoken like all the arrogant cranks. your uneffected because in your eyes us lesser beings are incapable of seeing the light as you have.
Actually, that's not the direction of his posts in this part of the thread.
Being immune to objectivity isn't all that desirable an attribute on a science forum. It's like being immune to education while in school.
"Are you still beating your wife?" would be the classic example there.
much of his argument relies on dubious arguments of "science" that creationists and ID supporters use on a regular basis. take is arguments on the probabilities of evolution. focusing on the probability of a singular event happening once while ignore the number of times the chance comes up. I live in the deep south where anti evolution sentiment runs high and have heard most of the arguments. I have long since stopped giving evolution deniers the benefit of the doubt to their motives
It's still not related to his last argumentative posts though, whatever their point was.
How many frigging times do I have to explain this to you? The question you asked betrayed a very deep, fundamental ignorance of the principles of evolution. I mean mind numbingly, galaxy spanningly seriously, neck deep in shit ignorant. More ignorant than a five day old turd from an anemic ostrich with liver disease.
Again, there is nothing wrong with such ignorance. We are all more ignorant overall than we are knowledegable.
However - and what a huge however this is - if I am ignorant about a subject I do not pontificate on it. I do not disregard the words of the experts on the topic. I do not dismiss the observations of those who have studied the matter in some depth.
Yet this is exactly what you have done in this and other threads. If you were questioning observations to gain understanding, or dismissing comments that were unsubstantiated, this would be welcome, logical and scientific. This is not what you have been doing. You, from a knowledge base that is substantially poorer than I initially imagined, dare to criticise well founded theory.
If that isn't arrogant, then I am next in line to be President of Egypt.
A good theory should be able to make predictions. What does evolution predict will be the next aspect of human evolution? It cannot do that with any certainty. Evolutionary theory does not satisfy the prediction requirement of a theory. In all due respect, it does a good job at correlating the past. Evolutionary theory is really the evolutionary correlation. But it is being pitched as a theory.
If evolution could satisfy the conditions of a science theory, it would not have a problem with creationism since it could demonstrate a prediction. But since there is semantic smoke and mirrors, it needs to censor.
Don't get me wrong, evolution does a good job at correlating the past and can be applied after the fact. But it can't be used to predict the future, except in a general nebulous way. It needs an upgrade before it can be called a real theory and not a pretend theory that is really a correlation.
Absolutely true. What has evolutionary theory predicted? One example would be the prediction made by Darwin's followers in the late 19th century that forms intermediate between apes and man would be found. A further related prediction was that forms ancestral to man and to ape would be found. Both predictions were fulfilled.
A considerable number of similar predictions concerning all kinds of intermediate species, the missing links of popular culture, have been made and fullfilled.
In short, evolution fully meets your requirements of being a good theory. What may not be so good is your understanding of what constitutes a theory.
And indeed the theory of evolutions does.
Not about the nature of the new forms that will evolve, as a central part of the theory is that genetic change is basically a random process -for example perhaps a change in the DNA of a germ cell caused by a passing cosmic ray, etc. Also as it is the changed environment which determines which minor genetic changes will be favored and which will be selected against, prediction of the new forms is BY THE THEORY, IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT unless you can predict how the environment will change. (major genetic changes in one step usually are fatal, - why it usually takes long times (million years, etc.) for a new species to evolve. So these are two confirmed prediction of evolutionary theory (1) Normally very long time for new species to emerge - confirmed by the fossil record; And (2) prediction of the new form that will emerge is impossible.
However, enviromental theory does also predict what factors will speed the development of a new species. The major ones are:
(1) Isolated gene pool, so new benefitial gene for that enviroment will not be too quickly lost among a wider population
(2) Very small gene pool so new beneficial gene can quickly spread through out the small gene pool.
(3) No Predators to eat the bearer of the new beneficial gene before it can be spread into later generations.
(4) Harsh conditions so that even a slight beneficial gene may make a difference in survival. For example creatures that only can digest bananas might have a genetic change that allowed them to digest grass, but if there are lots of bananas available and that is what the bearer of the grass digestion gene learned to eat, that gene, although potentially beneficial, (4) will not offer much survival advantage,
(5) until the massive banana blight hits and 90% of the gene pool starves to death. (5)Very harsh environment conditions make even small genetic advantage very big survival advantage. - Get it selected for.
(6) Harsh condition lasting for long periods, no just a passing drought etc. but for tens of thousands of generation as significant fraction of the gene pool starving to death due to over breeding.
(7) Being trapped in a tiny areas with no means of moving to where conditions are less harsh.
These are seven predictions that evolution theory makes about what can shorten the time required for a new species to evolve. If all seven are strongly satisfied, then the rate of evolution can be speeded up by a factor of 100 (not a million years, but species evoluting in 10,000 years.) It just so happened that from the end of the last ice age, about 8,000 years ago, all seven were very strongly in effect for the full 8,000 years and a new species did evolve, confirming these seven predictions of evolution theory. That species, called the preá, evolved from the guinea pig species that lives still unchanged on a much larger island only 8 Km away by boat. Not only do the preá, have quite a different appearance, size and facial features, (very tiny and flat –quite human like with no snout) etc. but the preá, cannot mate and produce fertile off springs with the guinea pig species they evolved from. – I.e. the preá, is a new species.
Please read more about the fascinating history of the preá, and the tiny (football field sized) rocky island it lives on, with so little grass that no more than 42 individual can find enough food. There are no predators on the island so death by starvation, is was common for any evolving preá, without the latest slight genetic advantage, such as being a little smaller that the average and needing less food, for all 8,000 years. See photo of the preá, and more details showing the confirmation of these seven predictions of evolutionary theory at:
SUMMARY: evolution does make at least the above nine predictions, all of which have been well confirmed! There are at least a dozen others, predicted "missing links" that were later found in the fossil records. One of the most famous is that modern birds evolve from dinosaurs, and decades after the predictions, in China, dinosaur fossils with feathers were found. But I only know of this one but I am old enough to remember (as a child*) when that suggestion was first predicted (Few accepted it initially, but then the evidence kept coming in that it was true. - Now almost everyone with knowledge in the area accept as fact that the birds did evolve from dinosaurs.)
* Many children are interested in dinosaurs - I was and it seemed silly to me when I first heard (or read?) someone suggest that birds were evolved dinosaurs. Fact is that at least some of the dinosaurs did not die out - they evolved to become birds.
As much as I would like to ....
As much as I would LOVE to weigh in on this subject..
My 2 cents on the subject are simply this.
The "EVIDENCE" suggests evolution.
PEOPLE that don't acknowledge EVIDENCE suggest creation.
Its a tired old argument... one that never seems to get resolved.
So I will just throw a few questions out there.. and perhaps stir the pot a bit.
---If it were presented in court that the defendant had to WALK ACROSS WATER to commit the crime he was accused of, would you find him guilty?
---If it were presented in court that God told the defendant to kill an evil man, would you find him justified because "God said so" and let him back out on the street?
---If you answered "NO" to these questions... and you have a a fervent belief in God or Creation... then I am baffled...
Why would you believe a book.. and not the testimony of a man standing before you under oath?
Especially toward yourself.
Your need for attention dominates your reasoning to the point to which it is difficult to determine if you have any ability to reason, which can't be true. You appear crippled by this spasms of madness and irrationality. This emotionalism has you so completely distracted you that seem to be in some sort of repetitious seizure. Perhaps you should make an effort to calm yourself this cannot be beneficial for someone of such advanced age.
Well that's your perrogative and I'm glad you keep your dogma to your opinions but I have no dogma on this subject, just the facts.
Fully false if not pure distortion.
I have only the knowledge that has been acquired by those in the professions. I regurgitate that information. You're fighting yourself through Strawman, sir, making an enemy worthy of fighting because apparently my deeds are insufficient to actually warrant that which you describe.
You assume arrogance and you use the word ignorant of it's actual meaning.
Arrogant: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
1. I haven't proclaimed my superiority in the manner. To the contrary I have yielded to the reasonable and the logical.
2. I have not attempted to dominant you or press you to be subjugated. In fact I have asked for teachers.
3. I have not brow-beated you but have given the facts.
4. I have not insulted you (at least not purposely) I have used your names properly along with the proper decorum of sir, and ma'am which I believe is the respect you are due.
5. I have displayed no pride or shame for that matter. It is all out in the open
My errors and vindications by facts.
However these ARE all the same common denominators in your own post. You have proclaimed to be my superior by implication. Your need to dominate me is fairly self apparent by your own repetitions. To what logical destination could you possibly endeavor by the bellowing of IGNORANT! IGNORANT! IGNORANT!IGNORANT! 4x times...not for four different occasions but for one question that wasn't even spoken to you. Yet spoken to an individual that was behaving rationally and scholarly. Your response to the humility YOU claimed you wanted from me was to pretentiously dictate my intentions for wanting to be taught. You and your associates have used just about every tool in the Book of Bullies to intimidate and strong arm me to accept your superiority. Yes, you've symbolized me as a child in knowledge compared to you, which I humbly accept, but when faced with the rationale that would symbolize you as an adult you hypocritically beg-off your responsibility like a bunch of obnoxious pre-pubescence. I struggle to find the maturity in the room. You can shine the light but you can't stand in it.
I don't need to resort to exaggerations and a wild miss-descriptions to make my point I merely have to redirect you to the vulgar expression spewing forth from your own mouths. You have matched every single word of the definition. What you have marked as arrogant you have by folly defined yourself. Now please try and get a grip.
Ophiolite says intermediate links is a test of the theory however Darwin said.
“The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true.
You sir are a liar.
No, sir. That is a direct quote. If this is a falsehood you've failed to reveal my knowledge of it.
Separate names with a comma.