peener weener Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 what i learned today is never again never again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I learned... that the Theory of Evolution is absolutely, positively FALSE. Wait, I didn't learnt that... I already knew it... Argument? No. I don't want to start an argument. I know some people believe the Theory of Evolution is true or whatnot, and really, I could care less. People have opinions - I respect that. I was just stating mine. Edit: @Defeatist Elitist Like I said - its my opinion. (Well, sort of. There isn't much evidence supporting macroevolution.) I believe in microevolution, though. :P I learned... that the Theory of Evolution is absolutely, positively FALSE. People have opinions - I respect that. I was just stating mine. the Theory of Evolution is absolutely, positively FALSE. Like I said - its my opinion. today i learned you're an irreparable moron Edited January 25, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Vanguard Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I learn't that an Internet argument can start from one's own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) today i learned you're an irreparable moron Okay, whatever you say~ I don't mind what you say, really. Mock me. :P I'm fine with that. I don't let clouds gather above my head over things like this. :) EDIT: I'm serious. I had no intentions of making this happen... :( Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icon of Sin Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I could care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I learned... that the Theory of Evolution is absolutely, positively FALSE. omq me tooooo :O liek omg i didnt come from no monkey, the good lord jesus christ made me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Damn it Dio you beat me to it. I was going to reply in exactly the same manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Argument? No. I don't want to start an argument. I know some people believe the Theory of Evolution is true or whatnot, and really, I could care less. People have opinions - I respect that. I was just stating mine. Edit: @Defeatist Elitist Like I said - its my opinion. (Well, sort of. There isn't much evidence supporting macroevolution.) I believe in microevolution, though. :P Yeah, but in this case your opinion is wrong and you're happily shitting it all over the place, so fuck you. Also, while microevolution and macroevolution are indeed things, they are not as different as you seem to think, and you're blindly repeating creationist dogma. If you actually understood the theory of evolution even remotely, you would understand why what you've said seems fucking insane (now if you'd said that natural selection was not the primary driver of a lot of macroevolution than hey, there is a lot of debate about that, but either way, evolution fucking happens, whether micro or macro). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Yeah, but in this case your opinion is wrong and you're happily shitting it all over the place, so fuck you. Also, while microevolution and macroevolution are indeed things, they are not as different as you seem to think, and you're blindly repeating creationist dogma. If you actually understood the theory of evolution even remotely, you would understand why what you've said seems fucking insane (now if you'd said that natural selection was not the primary driver of a lot of macroevolution than hey, there is a lot of debate about that, but either way, evolution fucking happens, whether micro or macro). Simple. Then you explain how it works. *sits here patiently waiting for answers/proof* P.S. I know how the Theory of Evolution works. I learned about it, too. ^^ (Really, it's an interesting topic.) Edit: I never knew why people made such a big deal about this (evolution). Edit 2: Really, so what if I'm a creationist? ^^ Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 there is no proof, god created everything its written in the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esme Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 EDIT: I'm serious. I had no intentions of making this happen... :( it is too late you've already thrown the meat into the lion's den and boy... they're starving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) there is no proof, god created everything its written in the bible. That's what I (and apparently you?) believe, but I want to hear what they have to say. Edit: @Esme Nice way of putting it. But I don't care. I like debating. Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esme Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) That's what I (and apparently you?) believe I believe you, too, man. I mean seriously, monkeys and apes? The Bible says that God crafted us from the dust and breathed the Breath of Life into our bodies. How could anyone seriously believe that evolution is true? It's like saying the Earth is a million years old! So stupid! xP this is all sarcasm and I actually don't believe anything that I am posting outside of this spoiler within this post just saying since you didn't catch the sarcasm that 69 displayed Edited January 25, 2013 by Esme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I believe you, too, man. I mean seriously, monkeys and apes? The Bible says that God crafted us from the dust and breathed the Breath of Life into our bodies. How could anyone seriously believe that evolution is true? It's like saying the Earth is a million years old! So stupid! xP this is all sarcasm and I actually don't believe anything that I am posting outside of this spoiler within this post just saying since you didn't catch the sarcasm that 69 displayed Oh... ... ... ... I still want to hear what they have to say, though. ^^ Edit: I mean, what solid proof is there for evolution? Like, 100% solid... or at least something like that. I'm not saying that God created the earth and all life (although that's what I believe), but I'm saying that evolution's false. Can someone provide SOLID proof for that? (Really, I'd like to see something.) Edit 2: This is the first time someone said "**** you" to me. :( Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Oh... ... ... ... I still want to hear what they have to say, though. ^^ Edit: I mean, what solid proof is there for evolution? Like, 100% solid... or at least something like that. I'm not saying that God created the earth and all life (although that's what I believe), but I'm saying that evolution's false. Can someone provide SOLID proof for that? (Really, I'd like to see something.) One of the most basic examples of micro-evolution (that is, the change in genotypes of a population over time) is bacteria and anti biotics. A colony of, say, E.coli situates itself in a petri disc. Another is on a petri disc in a similar environment (same temperature, pressure, etc. keep shit constant). They grow normally, they have plenty of nutrients to exist, etc. One colony is exposed to an antibiotic, and it wipes out a good chunk of the population (about 99.8%--whatever, the number is arbitrary; just note that most are eliminated). Those who survive are left to reproduce. Considering bacteria reproduce via binary fission, the DNA of the surviving generation (call it generation A), passes on directly to the offspring (generation B). If you continued issuing the antibiotic to this colony, you would eventually see a resistance built. How do we prove this resistance? Take the colony that was left alone. By now, a similar amount of generations should have passed in both dishes. Apply the antibiotic to both colonies now. The one previously left alone should die off like the first colony did the first time, with very few survivors. The one previously exposed to the antibiotic should remain much more stable. This is why you take a flu shot every year, instead of a vaccine for something such as polio. If you truly do not see that organisms and even viruses evolve over time, in small increments, you should only get a flu shot once in your life. Now, if you do not believe in evolution, that is one thing; to dismiss all scientific evidence towards it is another. Just because something is theory, it does not mean that it is wrong. Remember that. As a future biologist, I would be happy and willing to entertain this conversation as long as it needs to be. Edited January 25, 2013 by Doga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) One of the most basic examples of micro-evolution (that is, the change in genotypes of a population over time) is bacteria and anti biotics. A colony of, say, E.coli situates itself in a petri disc. Another is on a petri disc in a similar environment (same temperature, pressure, etc. keep shit constant). They grow normally, they have plenty of nutrients to exist, etc. One colony is exposed to an antibiotic, and it wipes out a good chunk of the population (about 99.8%--whatever, the number is arbitrary; just note that most are eliminated). Those who survive are left to reproduce. Considering bacteria reproduce via binary fission, the DNA of the surviving generation (call it generation A), passes on directly to the offspring (generation B). If you continued issuing the antibiotic to this colony, you would eventually see a resistance built. How do we prove this resistance? Take the colony that was left alone. By now, a similar amount of generations should have passed in both dishes. Apply the antibiotic to both colonies now. The one previously left alone should die off like the first colony did the first time, with very few survivors. The one previously exposed to the antibiotic should remain much more stable. This is why you take a flu shot every year, instead of a vaccine for something such as polio. If you truly do not see that organisms and even viruses evolve over time, in small increments, you should only get a flu shot once in your life. Now, if you do not believe in evolution, that is one thing; to dismiss all scientific evidence towards it is another. Just because something is theory, it does not mean that it is wrong. Remember that. As a future biologist, I would be happy and willing to entertain this conversation as long as it needs to be. ...I think I mentioned before that I believe in microevolution. I said that I didn't believe in MACROevolution. Edit: Cool. I like biology, too. I want to be a doctor. ^^ And, by the way, I'm not dismissing all scientific evidence. I actually want to hear some~ Edit 2: Like what you said. :) Only... that doesn't really support macroevolution... Edit 3: I don't get the flu shot every year... Don't look at me. Ask my mom why. :P Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 darwins experiment with the finches proves macroevolution. theres also that female darwin whos doing research on aquatic species, her research helps too. i can link a few sites but i doubt you'll read them. im pretty sure you're familiar with darwins finches too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I got one explanation for macroevolution: Australian fauna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 darwins experiment with the finches proves macroevolution. theres also that female darwin whos doing research on aquatic species, her research helps too. i can link a few sites but i doubt you'll read them. im pretty sure you're familiar with darwins finches too. Darwin's experiment with finches proved MICROevolution, not macroevolution. If he'd shown how finches became, say, eagle, then THAT'D be proof for macroevolution. I'm still not convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I got one explanation for macroevolution: Australian fauna. Like? Could you explain? (Please?) Edit: Intricacies, please. If possible, that is. Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Darwin's experiment with finches proved MICROevolution, not macroevolution. If he'd shown how finches became, say, eagle, then THAT'D be proof for macroevolution. I'm still not convinced. No single person can observe an organism evolving into another species entirely; it would take much too long for any single individual's life span. Now, if you want some proof for speciation, I can explain that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) No single person can observe an organism evolving into another species entirely; it would take much too long for any single individual's life span. Now, if you want some proof for speciation, I can explain that. Exactly. That's because it doesn't happen. For starters, why are there no fossils of these "evolutions." If organisms developed into more complex ones, shouldn't there be something in between? That's what I'd assume. The thing is - no one has found anything. Well, fine, they did. But those are rare. And on top of that, there's little proof. Scientist often bring in their own notions. Not very scientist-like, is that? Edit: Could you explain? Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doga Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Like? Could you explain? (Please?) Edit: Intricacies, please. If possible, that is. I'm no scientist, but I'll explain this to the best of my ability. Australia has fauna unique to itself, not really seen in many other places in the world, if at all. What I am primarily talking about are mammals such as monotremes and marsupials. I'm sure we know what each of these are: egg-laying mammals, and mammals whose offspring complete most of their development outside of the womb. Most mammals outside of Australia (with a few exceptions), are eutherian, which host their offspring in placenta in the uterus for the majority of their development. Who cares, right? What does this prove? They could have simply been made this way. Interestingly enough, eutherian mammals have somewhat identical marsupial counterparts that fill similar ecological niches. For example, the sugar glider is a marsupial, and the flying squirrel of North America look similar, ans play similar roles in the ecosystem. If you look at the fossil record of organisms, and all of that jazz, you can see that before the eutherian mammals came about, mostly all of the mammals were monotremes and marsupials, dating farther back to a single ancestor for mammals. A phylogeny is a great way to show the relations between different phyla, since it branches out and such. If, in the rest of the world (mostly), eutherian mammals ruled supreme, how did the marsupials and monotremes of Australia survive? Clearly, the ones in the rest of the world did not make it for the most part, making them less favorable to their environment. The world was once one landmass, Pangea. In it, organisms could, essentially, freely travel across the continent (moreso populations than organisms, I suppose). At some point in time, the marsupials lived all throughout Pangea, but as time went on, the continents drifted (you "believe" in tectonic plates, right?), leaving the continents to form as they are today. Due to the way the Australian continent oriented itself, the environment never seemed to push for the traits eutherian mammals possessed. In all honesty, evolution does tend to lead to more "complex" organisms, but a major misunderstanding in the dogma is that it is goal-oriented. Organisms do not evolve for a specific goal or purpose. Over millions of years, there is no force that says "Oh, ok, alright, go on land, let's just ditch our gils and become terrestrial.". It is a combination of a passing on of favorable traits (over millions and millions of years) and random chance. Just luck. Why do we use ATP as a molecule for energy? It just kind of happened. Evolution is not always ultimately in favor of the organism; what is favorable in one environment, is not favorable in every environment. What of comparative embryology? Homologous structures? Is it mere coincidence that fossil records date the origins of life back to water, and that many mammals today develop as embryos in sacs similar to an aqueous environment? That such environments have many parallels to those of eggs? You say that there are no physical "intermediates" between the ancestors millions of years ago and the species we have today. I urge you to immediately look into some sort of reputable science textbook above the high school level, with sections that outline evolution, and I think you'd be met with figures that suggest otherwise. There is a large, hefty difference between a belief system, and scientific theory. I can believe anything I want, but is there proof of it? I can say that long ago, the world was made because some ethereal being decided to belch into a megaphone and the vibrations afterwards spawned the universe. I can say the center of the Earth is made of cheese--I have no physical proof that it is, but do you have physical proof that it is not? Rather, there is evidence, hard, factual evidence that is building by the day to support this theory. You can believe anything you want, and no one ever said to trust a single scientist. Never, ever trust a single scientist--they want you to believe what they say in order to gain credibility and funding. Instead, look at the facts. Look at the history; look at the compilation of evidence that seems to go in the right direction. Believe what you want, FF4E, but do not deny that these facts, this research, and this evidence is all coincidence. That is the making of a fool, and I would not trust with my life, the well being of our future, in the hands of a fool who cannot see this. ((I'm not concluding, I just wanted to sound dramatic. Will continue to discuss this. Perhaps I misunderstood your viewpoints.)) Edit: I have class at 12:30, so I'll reply eventually. Edited January 25, 2013 by Doga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Of course evolution exists. It's in Pokemon ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Envoy of the Beginning Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Of course evolution exists. It's in Pokemon ffs. Metroids have been evolving before Pokemon even existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.