yang guize wrote:it is not true. inbreeding in your family is made illegal in the west because two people with very similar dna have a higher chance to pass on a genetic disease to their child if they have it, because they are passing on a much greater number of similar genes.
also, someone said i am an athiest which i am not. i am buddhist.
Illegal? As far as I've heard, it's strictly a taboo. Also, your logic concerning passing on a genetic disease sounds extremely flawed.
puppydog85 wrote:Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.
lolwut.
Renewed yet infused with apathy. Let's just have a good time, all right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
Neoteny wrote:There is another problem when accepting the theory of evolution in that the changes are so gradual that the reproductively beneficial effects are likely to be swamped by random noise. Hence speciation requires some other process. What you need is a kind of "accelerated evolution" that kicks in when the species needs to adapt or die. There is a such a process but before we consider it you would need to answer the obvious question - how would an animal "know" that accelerated evolution is required?
The answer is that during the fusion of sperm and egg, a check takes place to see how close the two sets of DNA are. If there is a healthy difference then normal amounts of variation take place - if, however, the two sets of DNA are very close then the system "knows" that there is a problem and therefore kicks into "high variation" mode.
Ridiculous? Unsupported?
I think not - attractive though my sister is I'm only going to breed with her if there aren't any other options. And what happens if a very small population in-breeds repeatedly? High levels of variation! What we think of as the effects of inbreeding are actually the deliberate result of the reproductive process kicking into "high variation mode" in the hope of creating a new variant that can best adapt to the current environment.
The genesis story supports this and illustrates how the authors were aware. The creation of Eve from Adam and the regular incest that occurs in the following chapters hark back to a time when the human population was so small that sis (or mom) was your best choice. This also suggests, that given the current success of humanity as a species, that this time actually resulted in a major positive development of humanity. So the concept of the "fall" is written from the perspective of an earlier (and less developed) hominid. Without the incest of genesis then speciation into homo erectus would never have happened. Genesis can be viewed as the last text of a dieing breed of human being replaced by our own kind.
Initially, that's how I see incest supports speciation, progress and more
Neo, this is interesting because that theory can actually be tested. Couldn't you take a species that reproduces fairly quickly, but is large enough to easily see the outcome of your tests, and breed from siblings and see what happens?
One of the main model organisms for genetic studies is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, and anyone that works with them knows that after a little while, if you keep them isolated, their variety will explode and they'll start growing legs out of their faces and such seemingly crazy conditions as they adapt to bottleneck conditions. It's beautiful, really.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
It is truly pathetic that so many are so selfish that they are prepared to impede scientific progress in the name of a several thousand year old creation myth
comical opinions boy wrote:It is truly pathetic that so many are so selfish that they are prepared to impede scientific progress in the name of a several thousand year old creation myth
Or maybe it is selfish of you to undermine their world view, their comfort in this life.
People have left feet but they also have right feet, and they need to use both to walk successfully. Maybe you could think about that.
comical opinions boy wrote:It is truly pathetic that so many are so selfish that they are prepared to impede scientific progress in the name of a several thousand year old creation myth
Or maybe it is selfish of you to undermine their world view, their comfort in this life.
People have left feet but they also have right feet, and they need to use both to walk successfully. Maybe you could think about that.
puppydog85 wrote:Well, here is another one. Evolution is not science. For a scientific test you must also have the capability to have a negative outcome. Survival of the fittest does not have that ability, making it an untestable theory. If Evolution is built upon survival of the fittest then you have an unprovable theory at its base.
So what you're saying is that the theory of evolution is too obviously correct to be scientific?
carlsagansghost wrote:You are very full of hate. Maybe you just let other people (e.g. religious people) live their lives in the peace you wish them to leave you to yours?
I have no problem with most religious people , just the fundamentalist minority who have a stone age mindset.
carlsagansghost wrote:You are very full of hate. Maybe you just let other people (e.g. religious people) live their lives in the peace you wish them to leave you to yours?
Probably because folks denying evolution won't leave us OUR peace, but keep invading our schools, texbooks.... not mention highly distorting reality to do so.
Oh, and this is most definitely not about "religion" in general.. or even Christianity. It is about a small group of Christians who flat out deny evidence and a larger group that just doesn't bother much with either science or religion and therefore may answer poll questions either supporting or denying evolution just depending on the wording and recent news.
carlsagansghost wrote:You are very full of hate. Maybe you just let other people (e.g. religious people) live their lives in the peace you wish them to leave you to yours?
Probably because folks denying evolution won't leave us OUR peace, but keep invading our schools, texbooks.... not mention highly distorting reality to do so.
Oh, and this is most definitely not about "religion" in general.. or even Christianity. It is about a small group of Christians who flat out deny evidence and a larger group that just doesn't bother much with either science or religion and therefore may answer poll questions either supporting or denying evolution just depending on the wording and recent news.
Its not just Christian groups , Orthodox Jews and a large part of the Muslim world refuse to accommodate anything that challenges the literal truth of their creation myths.
The WM thread is obviously beast. The threads where Lionz uses the "Adam's pubic hair" argument are excellent, and the one where AoN talks about his degrees and poorly defends/attacks central dogma were also awesome.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
"Too obviously correct". That is a good one. No, it is called rigging a theory to exclude a negative outcome.
I love the whole "well, it's obvious I am right" argument. It basically translates to, "well, I have no idea where to go from here, so let's just say it's obvious and hope he does not question it."
If it were so obvious it would be easily explained. And anyone looking at current evolutionary thought knows that nothing about it is easy (i.e. punctuated equilibrium= "We have no proof so let's such say that no proof is our proof". And I know I am generalizing, but it's a Risk forum so please pardon me.
Gillipig wrote:Just starting this thread in case anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution shows up. I want to destroy someone! Please show up!?
You have two people who have stated they don't believe. I would like to witness the destruction now.
I don't think you're up to the challenge.
Interesting that the OP started the "discussion" but has not come back to "destroy" anyone (yet?).
It's OK, I'm on the job.
puppydog85 wrote:"Too obviously correct". That is a good one. No, it is called rigging a theory to exclude a negative outcome.
I love the whole "well, it's obvious I am right" argument. It basically translates to, "well, I have no idea where to go from here, so let's just say it's obvious and hope he does not question it."
If it were so obvious it would be easily explained. And anyone looking at current evolutionary thought knows that nothing about it is easy (i.e. punctuated equilibrium= "We have no proof so let's such say that no proof is our proof". And I know I am generalizing, but it's a Risk forum so please pardon me.
Evolution is actually pretty easy to explain and grasp. If it's taught in high school it isn't exactly incomprehensible. You say that evolution isn't falsifiable, but it really is. For instance, if we can find something in the fossil record that is clearly out of place, that could be used as evidence against evolution.
That said, what part of evolution do you dispute? It's hard for me to defend a broad theory without knowing what parts of it you disagree with.
Last edited by Frigidus on Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
yang guize wrote:LOL. if you do not understand something then it must be god? this is excellent. you use the same pattern of thought as the ancients who thought that dragons live in the sky and under the sea, causing rain and waves and similar. i do not understand rain, so maybe it is a big dragon getting angry. maybe evolution is controlled by the dragons as well. LOL
So, if you don't understand God, it must be evolution?
I'm not going to bother to "destroy" evolution. It was pretty much done in a thread I started years ago.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Jay! how ya been? I've missed you. I disagree with just about every opinion you've ever expressed, but that doesn't stop me thinking you're a fine guy. And, uh, no, I don't think you managed to "destroy" evolution. You know you convinced nobody whatsoever.
yang guize wrote:LOL. if you do not understand something then it must be god? this is excellent. you use the same pattern of thought as the ancients who thought that dragons live in the sky and under the sea, causing rain and waves and similar. i do not understand rain, so maybe it is a big dragon getting angry. maybe evolution is controlled by the dragons as well. LOL
So, if you don't understand God, it must be evolution?
I'm not going to bother to "destroy" evolution. It was pretty much done in a thread I started years ago.
Renewed yet infused with apathy. Let's just have a good time, all right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
