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 03-21-2013, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,626,507 times
Reputation: 3949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
Did you know that something can be both random and completely deterministic at the same time? Random is how closely you look at the system.
Actually, no they can't. Differences of scale can reveal a pattern in what looks initially to be a random process... but the process itself was never random in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
For example, an everyday joe would describe a coin flip as random. But a determined physicist could take into account wind speed, initial imparted momentum by the thumb flick.
That's not even a difference of scale. That's simply a difference of the vernacular versus the technical. "Joe Sixpack" vs. "Joe Scientist."

Analogy fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
As for ERVs, they are not formed randomly.
Wrong. The randomness of ERV insertion is an empirical fact. The universe is not large enough to even allow them to turn from the genuinely random distribution that we directly observe into a probabilistic distribution.

Not enough particles in the universe... remember?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Maybe from a biological/inheritance level, but that's just one level. We can dig deeper.
The only digging necessary here is for you to dig out of the hole you're already in.

Remember... nothing here is theoretical. Nothing is conjectural.

 
Old 03-21-2013, 04:44 PM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,263,264 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
To believe otherwise, is just as absurd as believing the Microsoft OS wrote itself by simply collecting 1's and 0's, throwing them together in a big bit bag, shaking them up for a few million years, and then constructing a computer to run the code that wrote itself.

That's apparently what you believe if you believe evolution ...
Ah that old straw man. You write so well I did not think you likely to reduce yourself to misrepresenting the claims of evolution that desperately.

No... the claims of evolution are not similar to shaking up anything and getting a desired result. Your false and misleading analogy is to starting with nothing... shaking it up.... and getting something massively complex, ordered, and intended. Perhaps youre reasoning is mutilated by intelligent design thinking. You guys think of a designed goal so you assume evolution does too.

No... evolution is not about shaking up anything from nothing to get a complex something. It is about a steady... ongoing... series of intermediate steps... resulting in tiny and minute changes over time. This is not just different to your crass plagiarism of the hurricane in a junk yard analogy that you are passing off as your own.... but is in fact the exact opposite of it.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 04:54 PM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,263,264 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Apparently how primate ancestors (if I believed your fantasy world) survived just fine without speech. Why the change?
Your error here is in thinking there is any "reason" for a change in Evolution Theory. There is not and never is. You are still making the error of thinking of "reason" in terms of a design, intention, or plan.

Changes just happen. Mostly small ones, very occasionally large. But they happen. No reason, no plan, no intent, no goal. They just do.

When one happens that confers an advantage however... it more often than not survives and propagates. Simple as that.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,321 posts, read 28,138,757 times
Reputation: 28810
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Communication is not the same as language. A language involves rules of syntax and structure, and it is completely unique to humans. If we arrived via evolution, I would expect all humans to speak the same language.
HHMI News: Warbling Whales Speak a Language All Their Own
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,689,036 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Actually, no they can't. Differences of scale can reveal a pattern in what looks initially to be a random process... but the process itself was never random in the first place.
When mathematicians and scientists use the word random, they define it to the system structure. There is no pure random mathematical or scientific concept it all depends on the amount of variables used to determine the system. More variables used, the less 'random' things are.

ERVs are not random.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:06 PM
 
9,066 posts, read 5,598,130 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And we have directly observed that evolution. In just the last 2000 years, Latin has evolved into Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian... and a number of others.

We can trace their evolution in their fossils... er.... documents.
BWUHAHAHAHA ..... communications .... let's talk about the the evolution of modern technology based communications for an inside scoop on how that all is "evolving" ... K ?

We started out with telegraph and morse code. Then the telephone was invented, which evolved into a push button device rather than the dial type or the crank type before it. Then the wireless revolution and the evolution of the cell phone from a bag, to pocket size ... then onto the modern smart phones which the dummies now use as a pocket telegraph, texting each other rather than actually speaking to each other which was the novel purpose of the telephone to begin with. Since texting is more taxing than is speaking, the language is evolving to help mitigate that by converting "Are you available at eight o'clock tonight" to "R U bz-e @ 8".

I understand that the evolution is moving so rapidly now, the iPhone 6 is rumored to incorporate a morse code application and clicker ... with plans for the iPhone 7 to incorporate only four buttons ... one button for each guttural caveman noise of ... argh ... ug ... grunt ... growl ... so that as we humans continue to evolve, we'll be covered by cutting edge Apple Technology.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:15 PM
 
3,744 posts, read 2,587,616 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
That was precisely my point ... and it is an absurd correlation which is why I POINTED IT OUT

And I do think of DNA as code, and a very complex code at that. And I do also consider that code to have been the product of a "programmer", even though I don't know what or who that programmer was, I know it is highly unlikely that the code "wrote itself". To believe otherwise, is just as absurd as believing the Microsoft OS wrote itself by simply collecting 1's and 0's, throwing them together in a big bit bag, shaking them up for a few million years, and then constructing a computer to run the code that wrote itself.

That's apparently what you believe if you believe evolution ... and I find that unbelievable!



Where did the single celled organisms come from?
It is obvious that your ignorance on evolution, the origins of life etc., is massive. The torando-through-a-junkyard analogy is the realm of Evolution-Illiterates, not educated people.

What you say with regards to Microsoft etc., IS unbelievable, and it is NOT representative, in the least, of the Law of Evolution or theory ont he origins of life.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:35 PM
 
32,212 posts, read 16,541,956 times
Reputation: 17298
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And we have directly observed that evolution. In just the last 2000 years, Latin has evolved into Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian... and a number of others.

We can trace their evolution in their fossils... er.... documents.
<Puts on language creationist hat>

Impossible! You evo-linguists postulate that a language like English evolved, when it's ridiculously clear that it must have been designed by an intelligent entity. Otherwise, who would the first English-speaking person communicate with? His neighbors and family wouldn't understand this new language, would they? You actually expect us to believe that an entire society of English speakers popped up overnight. I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the only logical conclusion.

Besides, has anyone ever seen the spontaneous formation of a new language? Ooooh, you say it takes multiple generations. Isn't that just convenient? If there's no observation, it means you're taking it on faith.

Think about it! The only examples we have of new languages lately are those that have been created, like Volapyk and Esperanto. Clearly, new languages must have a creator. Language is a CODE, and you can't have code without somebody designing it.

As long as you can't show the first person who started speaking English, there's a Missing Link in your so-called "theory" and the school children should be taught the controversy.

<Takes off language creationist hat>
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:39 PM
 
9,066 posts, read 5,598,130 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Ah that old straw man. You write so well I did not think you likely to reduce yourself to misrepresenting the claims of evolution that desperately.

No... the claims of evolution are not similar to shaking up anything and getting a desired result. Your false and misleading analogy is to starting with nothing... shaking it up.... and getting something massively complex, ordered, and intended. Perhaps youre reasoning is mutilated by intelligent design thinking. You guys think of a designed goal so you assume evolution does too.

No... evolution is not about shaking up anything from nothing to get a complex something. It is about a steady... ongoing... series of intermediate steps... resulting in tiny and minute changes over time. This is not just different to your crass plagiarism of the hurricane in a junk yard analogy that you are passing off as your own.... but is in fact the exact opposite of it.
Total, unmitigated crap nonsense. You don't get to redefine evolution theory to your convenience, while back engineering and filling in the blanks with speculation posing as facts. And that is the most accurate definition of neo-Darwinism as it currently exists, but is itself ever "evolving" to meet every new challenge. But the truth is, it never adequately met the first challenge of how the first living cell came into being ... except to postulate the preposterous nonsense of random combining of inorganic elements that formed the first organic cell. Of course you want to deny that and you do, with a lot of irrelevant babble, because you understand at some level what a preposterous claim that really is. But you can't avoid it ... by simply denying it, and skipping ahead to begin the process of evolution after the first living and reproducing cell came into existence from non-living elemental building blocks. How was DNA constructed ... where did the complex code come from that provides the instructions to create an entire living organism, molecule by molecule ... it either came into existence by random mixing of elements, structuring itself in a coherent code thereafter (read: wrote itself) or something or someone wrote it. There is no other alternative other than to claim it simply always existed, which is no explanation at all.

Look, I understand the tough spot you're in ... you're trying to explain a thing that neither you nor anyone else can explain AND prove. Though apparently driven by your rather irrational fear or hatred of those who believe in creation, or Intelligent Design as the answer, you feel compelled to find any explanation, no matter how outlandish, to prove them wrong. But that's not the definition of science ... that's just one cultish and dogmatic mindset trying to defeat another.

You're no smarter .... no better ... no more believable, because your theories require just as much magic as the religious theory .... minus the magician ... which to me makes your magic a little more unlikely. No magician no magic bubba .... it's really that simple.
 
Old 03-21-2013, 05:45 PM
 
Location: WA
4,246 posts, read 7,827,696 times
Reputation: 2364
Are you sure you're not paid to do this? If you're not, you should be. You're really good at it, and you certainly have gotten a lot of practice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Total, unmitigated crap nonsense. You don't get to redefine evolution theory to your convenience, while back engineering and filling in the blanks with speculation posing as facts. And that is the most accurate definition of neo-Darwinism as it currently exists, but is itself ever "evolving" to meet every new challenge. But the truth is, it never adequately met the first challenge of how the first living cell came into being ... except to postulate the preposterous nonsense of random combining of inorganic elements that formed the first organic cell. Of course you want to deny that and you do, with a lot of irrelevant babble, because you understand at some level what a preposterous claim that really is. But you can't avoid it ... by simply denying it, and skipping ahead to begin the process of evolution after the first living and reproducing cell came into existence from non-living elemental building blocks. How was DNA constructed ... where did the complex code come from that provides the instructions to create an entire living organism, molecule by molecule ... it either came into existence by random mixing of elements, structuring itself in a coherent code thereafter (read: wrote itself) or something or someone wrote it. There is no other alternative other than to claim it simply always existed, which is no explanation at all.

Look, I understand the tough spot you're in ... you're trying to explain a thing that neither you nor anyone else can explain AND prove. Though apparently driven by your rather irrational fear or hatred of those who believe in creation, or Intelligent Design as the answer, you feel compelled to find any explanation, no matter how outlandish, to prove them wrong. But that's not the definition of science ... that's just one cultish and dogmatic mindset trying to defeat another.

You're no smarter .... no better ... no more believable, because your theories require just as much magic as the religious theory .... minus the magician ... which to me makes your magic a little more unlikely. No magician no magic bubba .... it's really that simple.
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 10:55 AM.

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