U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Florida
63,104 posts, read 34,367,413 times
Reputation: 10490

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkBeforeYouVote View Post

Actually, this statement is so laughable it requires a meme:


One single animal will not evolve into another entirely different animal. Anyone who thinks that is what evolution is has got to be mentally handicapped.

It's called "survival of the fittest", a family pug will survive regardless of its genetic makeup...
However, if a group of pugs was locked in a home for many thousands of years, they'd breed and interbreed until a specific type of pug which was best suited to survive in that environment would "evolve". Essentially if the food were only available to the tallest pug with the longest reach, the tallest pug would be the one that survived and passed on its genetic traits to the next generation. This would repeat until the pugs with long necks and tongues were the result. If those pugs that result from the selective breeding process that isolation forces were released and compared to pugs who had been able to continue on their traditional family dog path, they would not even resemble each other. Just look at what the English Bulldog has become in just a century and you can see how selective breeding can change a creature over a short time...just imagine it over thousands upon thousands of years.

If you accept genetics as fact (you have to, otherwise you're mentally ill), then evolution is obvious. If you introduce new genes into a family, that family changes.
Hmmm..laughable, mentally handicapped, mentally ill....judging by all the insults, I'd say you are offended by the mere suggestion that there might be a Creator, a God. I understand. I was like you before I saw the truth. Darwin was not able to explain the inaccuracies in his theory, but I am glad that you can (or think that you can).

 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,072,627 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
No it's not. That's lazy physics. The idea for the atom bomb existed long before that equation. All that equation does is a shorthand maximum limit on the amount of energy released. It's napkin calculating in other words.



Go read the link I posted. The Theory of Relativity is what lead to the atomic bomb.

Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 03:18 PM.. Reason: rude
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:38 AM
 
11,379 posts, read 7,353,584 times
Reputation: 4524
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
One celled trucks though, right?
One monster cell.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:38 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,432,328 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
For those who are apparently unaware of what the word theory even means despite having it explained to them over and over every time this topic comes up:

Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How can you say what should or should not be taught in science class when you have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about?

There is a difference between a scientifically validated theory and that of the general use of theory. Only a scientifically valid theory has gone through the rigorous testing process to achieve it being an accepted general principal.

Problem is, the term has been interchangeably used to the point of confusion.

It is like hearing people talk about router vs gateway or a switch vs bridge. They are distinctly different, though these days they are commonly used interchangeably which is often fine due to the general context of their use, but it doesn't make them the same.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:40 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,116,149 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
So were Cain and Abel just having sex with their mother, or their sisters they didn't list? What euphemism was listed there?

Its a stupid, metaphorical study that has nothing to do with reality. Ancient biblical figures didn't understand DNA anymore then they understood atomic theory. Just like the story of the exodus, can be explained scientifically and by knowing that there were misinterpretation of the language and the story over time. Same thing with Noah.

There is no theory that adequately explains how life began, how the first amino acid formed into a single celled organism. There are scientific theories to explain this, including asteroids and comets bringing the material here. We may all be evolved from creatures that evolved somewhere else.

But teaching creationsim, or banning evolution as saying this is how humans came to being, because of a religious story is silly.
The aliens told them about a snake, because Adam and Eve were too ignorant to comprehend the concept of DNA manipulation.

I've never truly bought into the theory that DNA and the first one celled organism just happened to pop into existence. DNA all by itself is so complex, how the hell did that come about?
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:42 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,116,149 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
There is a difference between a scientifically validated theory and that of the general use of theory. Only a scientifically valid theory has gone through the rigorous testing process to achieve it being an accepted general principal.

Problem is, the term has been interchangeably used to the point of confusion.

It is like hearing people talk about router vs gateway or a switch vs bridge. They are distinctly different, though these days they are commonly used interchangeably which is often fine due to the general context of their use, but it doesn't make them the same.
Which came first, the router or the gateway? I've always leaned towards the later.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:42 AM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,984,823 times
Reputation: 4547
Only Turkey is more ignorant than America when it comes to not accepting evolution.

"Miller et al.'s (2006) survey of 33 European countries and Japan, asking whether the residents agreed with, disagreed with, or were unsure of the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from an earlier species of animals.”

Only 40 % of Americans agreed with the statement; and only one country, Turkey, was more ignorant.

In contrast, countries such as Iceland, Denmark, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany all showed more than 70% agreement.

The problem: religion.

SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA (2012) SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA - Coyne - 2012 - Evolution - Wiley Online Library
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,695,011 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post


Can't argue with stupid. Its better to be thought a fool, then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. Go read the link I posted. The Theory of Relativity is what lead to the atomic bomb.
No it didn't. Like I said you're a person who doesn't know what he's talking about but clumsily assumes he does.

The premise of the A-bomb is that there is energy contained in atomic bonds and in certain situations a chain reaction can result. All E=MC^2 does is equate the amount of mass with the amount of energy (like I said it's really E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 because you need to take into account any possible momentum) so a person can estimate how much energy is released, i.e what's the mass before, what's the mass after, allows a quick dirty calculation in the energy calculated.

But that's not central to the A-bomb. What's central is knowing energy is released in the first place. Something they noticed as early as X-rays, etc.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,168,965 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator View Post
Perhaps you missed it or are exhibiting willful ignorance, but I already provided you a link in a prior post:

Check it out.

lols. Nice link. I've seen it before. Here's what the evolutionists claim from your fossil example. lols.

Eusthenopteron first appears 385 million years ago. It has six radial bones.

Panderichthys, first appearing 380 million years ago, is now believed to have four radial bones.

The Canadian fishopod, Tiktaalik, was found in 375 million year old rock. It's not known how many radial bones it has, because some of the fossil was missing, but it probably had eight. What's important here though is that Tiktaalik has a complex 'wrist joint," which was claimed to help it walk on land.

Ichthyostega has been found in rocks "dated" at 367 to 362.5 million years old. Because the front flipper/foot was not found, it is not known how many radial bones (if any) it may have had, nor if it had a wrist - however, Acanthostega, supposedly 365 million years old, did not have a wrist, and had eight radial bones.

So if we were to follow this fossil sequence, it would appear that the evolution of the finger has been something:

First we evolved six fingers, then in our evolutionary ascent we lost two, then gained four back at Acanthostega. Once on land, the number went back down to four (most amphibians have four toes). Apparently we evolved a complex wrist, only to lose it again at Acanthostega, and then apparently re-evolve it back once the critters got onto land.

And then there is the oldest fossil that "proves" man evolved from another species. The Coelacanth known is from Australia and dated at over 410 million years old. Although only a jawbone has been found, presumably it's at least similar to the other Coelacanths we do know of, which have lots of "radial bones" in its fin!

The Coelacanth has evolved over hundreds of millions of years into... Coelacanths.

There is no proof that one species has turned into another. None.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 13,505,611 times
Reputation: 4884
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
Just look at where all the debates are happening on this forum. It's not if a bacterium can evolve to be resistant to antibiotics it's if a specie can evolve into a different specie but more generally, the origin of life.

Why does the origin of life need to be taught in schools when it's basically a pure, just-so story?
The only reason forum debates go from "Theory of Evolution" to "Origin of Life" is because of the willfully ignorant who don't understand the difference. Many of them, as seen on this thread, argue that bacteria micro-evolutions are not evolutions, but adaptations or mutations. Or they say that evolution can only be true if a dog can evolve into a giraffe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top