|
|
o man tpk assraped amadeus like as if amadeus was a child in amadeus' van
|
Quote:
words have meaning when someone lies about what words mean and keeps propping up strawmen, they're the ones instigating semantics arguments |
tpk owned you
|
i for one am shocked - shocked i say- that a pedophile would intentionally misrepresent science
|
Quote:
|
ITT TPK slaughters Amapedo
|
yeah that poor flimsy strawman never had a chance :(
|
But you know what? Just for giggles:
Quote:
The theory of evolution does not posit that there is one global value for this. Quote:
Quote:
Population Genetics | Boundless Biology Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Human evolution - Background and beginnings in the Miocene | Britannica https://cdn.britannica.com/60/94660-...s-ancestor.jpg |
shut the **** up already kid toucher
|
bunch o fricken homos up in the top right there
|
Quote:
Quote:
inherited traits, allow for adaptation. do offspring inherit their parents traits? Would favorable traits be more successfully inherited? Congratulations youve observed evolution. I mean youre asking why there are still monkeys this is embarrassing dude. How can you say evolution is not a fact when you cant even define what it is? |
Pagy my dude you really need to check that victory mentality of yours
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Atheism is what happens when you read the bible. Christianity is what happens when somebody else reads it for you.
|
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/Jrgjb5S.png For someone that claims he is knowledgeable on the topic of evolution, you sure seem to be struggling to address any of my thoughtful discussion shown above. If you do not counter any of my points I will just assume that you were simply unable to. You claim that witnessing something that is rather called "genetic inheritance" is the same as witnessing evolution when it is not. They are two entirely different things. Your argument is basically the following: "Observing the passing of genetic traits from parent to child, is the same as watching the gradual slow process of them becoming a tree-hopping amphibious night-vision neon-skinned super advanced creature with 6 eyes, a three foot long tongue, and genius level intelligence that prefers Hawaiian coffee and Russian instagram models over the course of millions and millions of years." -Pagy And no, just because something inherits helpful and successful traits does not dictate its automatic success, and in many cases, the reverse will happen. There are people in this world that have way better DNA traits than me that simply get hit by a bus and die. I easily outlived them with my inferior genetics. This is the law of: "**** happens." Even if evolution were true, could it outrun the law of "**** happens?" I'm not convinced and I would like you to prove to me otherwise using a scientific experiment in a controlled environment that is testable, observable, and subject to reproduction while having different variables introduced to see the results. The man that is mostly famous for proposing the theory of evolution struggled horribly with mental illness all his life. I'm not eager to go to the mentally ill for my sources of truth as you are. Would you also choose a guidance counselor or therapist that is quite sick indeed and spends most of his time in a mental hospital? Evolution, at its roots, is magical, supernatural, requires blind faith based on weak deduction through evidence, and it is entirely unscientific, and by that I mean, it defies natural laws of the universe as we know them. Evolution obviously cannot be observed by the human eye. If you wish to prove to me otherwise you are welcome to introduce me to a friend that has seen the full transformation of one animal into an entirely new and totally different one (i.e. a frog becoming a dog). I accept personal testimony as a valid form of ascertaining truth. I only ask for measurable, observable, testable, repeatable truth. If you can't provide any of that for me, then why would I ever be inclined to believe you? And why would you ridicule someone and say they are "embarrassing themselves" by asking scrutinizing questions to see if a theory holds up? Seems awfully emotional and unscientific to me. It also seems like a wasted opportunity. Pagy's response: A) If the sun is so big, why does it look so small? B) LOL you embarrassing yourself by asking that! Normal scientific response: A) If the sun is so big, why does it look so small? B) Oh, good question. That is because it is very far away. Generally when people shy away from questions and attempt to ridicule the person talking to them by claiming that they are "embarrassing themselves", it is a sign that they have no answer to the question. This is further emphasized by your unwillingness to answer my very basic, simple, investigate question. You still have yet to provide an answer. If you claim that a puddle of slime can become a 7-headed-hydra over time if you just "leave it alone for millions of years," then I would like to ask for proof using the scientific method of that being the case. |
Speaking of comments left unaddressed:
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
you later admitted to not even knowing what evolution was then continued to say you cant observe it. Its like arguing with a flat earther at this point. Youve been given answers and showed no progress on your extreme level of ignorance on the subject so im not convinced its worth my effort. |
Nothing says Christian like holding up a message of ignorant intolerance
|
See now i feel bad
Youre jumping into a deep subject without starting from the beginning. Define evolution first. If you want to be taught how something works, start slowly and demonstrate that you’re understanding what is being said before jumping into things like “i don’t understand dna/rna replication and therefore question genetic mutation as something that requires magic”. Students take years of biology before talking about dna replication at any deep level. Cells divide. Dna replicates. If you review the process its no wonder mistakes happen. But instead of understanding what a scientific theory is, or what evolution is, youre not going to successfully understand more complex ideas. |
Quote:
Ad hominem attacks are usually a clear indication that someone has no argument, no logic worth presenting, and are generally unable to respond, but feel the strong need to assert prideful superiority despite having little knowledge. You are representing yourself in an immature way by lowering yourself in this manner. You claim to "not want to waste your time interacting with me" while simultaneously posting at me. There is no consistency in your claim. You are welcome to go into semantics on the definition of the word "observe," and have a field day with that. Word games are always an effective way to unfairly shame someone saying sensible things. Claiming that "genetic inheritance" and "adaptation" are the same as evolution as you do shows a clear lack of understanding towards what evolution actually proposes, and the deeper underlying issues around it, as evolution goes far beyond those two words. If you don't even know the difference between these words, then perhaps you are right to not discuss them. Lastly, you are claiming that further discussing matters would be a "waste of time," which was my main argument and entry point into the thread. Thank you for reinforcing my main argument. Quote:
I generally enjoy your posts on here, find you to be intelligent, and appreciated your discussion in this thread, up until that last post I suppose. Quote:
I'm not judging you or condemning you, I'm just letting you know that while you complain about others being stupid, you simultaneously perpetuate it by refusing to engage in any form of healthy discussion. Quote:
I would never hold that stance. This quote shows me that you have no idea what I'm even saying, which is fair, because you claimed that to be the case. However, by refusing to engage with me, or address anything I have said, you have disallowed me from having any ability to clarify. In short, you don't understand my intellectual perspective even a little bit. Quote:
You realize there is a different between "genetic inheritance," "adaptation," "mutation," and "evolution" right? Like, when you look at all these words, you realize they are different right? I'm not convinced that you know what they are because you keep saying that these words are the same when they are clearly not. I'm not attempting to bait you into "wasting your time" as you put it, but if you want to have an actual discussion, we can start by defining words. What do these words mean to you? Are they all the same? Or are they different? If so, how? |
Quote:
View must be great from that glass house of yours. |
id align with any standard dictionary definition of those words. this is silly
i know where youre stuck. Ive had this discussion a 1000 times on tw. I know how they go. youre asking too many questions and saying too much. lets stick to the question. Can evolution be observed? If we cannot agree on the definition of “evolution” then this dialogue will be fruitless. Define evolution |
lavan can u please step in and explain dna polymerases to the class as we argue over what evolution means
|
Quote:
I will gladly give my non-googled definition: 1) To look upon something with curious intent. Ex) A man looked out his window and observed birds flying over a field. Quote:
I'm guessing at this point that we are using different definitions of the word, and you have dismissed me as ignorant on that basis. Similar to someone dismissing another individual as a fool, because they speak a foreign language they do not understand. Quote:
I will gladly hold myself to my own standard by kicking this off: (I give you my word I did not google, nor would I have any need to) Mutation - A sudden (relatively speaking) modification or change in the DNA of a creature that causes a tangible observable change in its physical representation or behavior. Genetic Inheritance - The passing of genetic traits from parent to child. Adaptation - The process of creatures changing to adjust to their environment by means of negative or lateral changes in their DNA. Evolution - A proposed theory that an animal, through the process of natural selection, can slowly change itself over great lengths of time into a new and completely different creature that is potentially more highly advanced than before in terms of cognition, physical ability, or characteristics. Now I would kindly ask you to do the same and define these words, and if it's not too much trouble, please tell me what definition you are using for "observe" that you are attempting to hammer away at me with. The word has more definition than Paris Hilton has sexual partners. Since everyone on here is hyper aggressive, you are welcome to begin sending ad-hominem attacks and attempting to shame me for my definitions. I am ready. Be warned though, I'm also fantastic at reducing my own forms of communication to the bottom level, and may be able to heavily outplay you in that regard. I'm just keeping everything above the belt for now because I believe you have the potential to do the same. |
Quote:
https://media0.giphy.com/media/3NeRn...&rid=giphy.gif |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk |
Again. Too much.
Quote:
read this as: changes in a gene pool within a population over time. This is the accepted scientific definition. This is the definition i will use. Now if you accept this definition, i can cite things like pesticide resistant insects, drug immune bacteria, the peppered moth...dogs...and we can see that evolution (changes in a gene pool within a population over time) is an observed and indisputable fact and i bug the **** out of this thread. May i bug the **** out of this thread? |
No. We haven't covered that we did not evolve from chimpanzees.
Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Gotcha, I hadn't scrolled back
Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
My question to you would be: "Do you think pond scum, if left to its own devices, will become a creature of human-like complexity and intelligence over the course of millions and millions of years?" This is what the theory of evolution proposes. Does it not? Please correct me and educate me if I am wrong so that I can learn and increase my understanding. Also, where is your definition of observe? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
you’re referring to creation of life from un-life. this is abiogenesis.
Spoiler
|
Quote:
Pond scum is notoriously filled with single celled organisms. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:08. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC