Originally Posted by Dylith Some vestigial parts/traits are useless yes. That doesn't answer the question, yet again. Is it a defining factor. You can't say "sometimes". Is it or not? For example, is hair a deciding factor in if something your looking at is a person. Some people have hair, ...
10-18-2007, 03:56 PM
| #81 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41  Paleolibertarian USA 
| Originally Posted by Dylith That doesn't answer the question, yet again. Is it a defining factor. You can't say "sometimes". Is it or not? For example, is hair a deciding factor in if something your looking at is a person. Some people have hair, and some do not, but it is not EVER a deciding factor. Whether or not there is hair on a something is not evidence that the something is a person or not.
In evolutionary theory, there is no "original" stomach, appendix, or eye. All those things evolved from goo in a pond with countless tiny changes. Who is to say that our appendix is not vestigal, but will be some day? Maybe it just sprang into existance like creatures during the Cambrian explosion? Another logical problem with that definition is that it includes macroevolution in its definition, which is itself an impossiblity. It's fine if you believe that one for the sake of argument though, I get that. But you can't deny the problem with the first thing I pointed out.
__________________ -Avengeance | ||||
     |
|
10-18-2007, 04:02 PM
| #82 | ||||
| Member  Liberal
| I like how you don't respond to the bits that make your position look bad. | ||||
| |
|
10-18-2007, 04:05 PM
| #83 | ||||
| Member Liberal
| Originally Posted by AVengeance Huh. Apparently you are a supporter of evolution when it comes to putting forth "evidence" with regards to the notion that blacks are inferior beings.
Interesting. | ||||
| |
|
10-18-2007, 04:11 PM
| #84 | ||||
| Member Liberal
| 1.) the definition of vestigial hasn't "changed" 2.) In order for something to be vestigial it doesn't have to be, but can be useless. A vestigial organ is something that has had its function reduced over the process of evolution this can be reduced to the point where it no longer provides a function 3.) You still have not addressed any of the examples of human vestigial parts that I have given you. 4.) You still are ignoring Smith's Law of Faunal Succession and the Law of Superposition 5.) You still have not provided any evidence for the existence of Triassic "birds" 6.) Evolution is simple fact, no matter how much you want to believe that we just sprung up as is. Our fossil records are so strong and there is so much evidence for evolution that it really can't be argued against. Certain topics within evolution can, but not the existence of evolution itself. | ||||
| |
|
10-18-2007, 04:19 PM
| #85 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Dylith Yes there is, although I could use the less well known name of apatosaurus. Next, you're going to tell me that Unilhexium doesn't really exist, and you'll think you're so smart because you know the other name for it- seaborgium. You're the guy in traffic that thinks he's showing everyone how fast his car is by cutting in and out of traffic, when all he's proving is what a dick he is.
With the incredible accuracy of radiometric dating, why rely on Smith's so-called law (which is really just a "principle" when you get down to it)? Maybe because there is no one complete "fossil record", but rather numerous tiny pieces that are put together, when and how convenient, to create an imaginary singular record. Radiometrically dating them would put their order all over each other, and fuck up the whole thing. | ||||
| |
|
10-18-2007, 04:21 PM
| #86 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Dylith tonque in cheek. But I guess you couldn't tell. Just more evidence which has been proven wrong (I have some of those science books- they're classics!). I've seen those racist drawings, and it's no wonder people believe in evolution when you see morphological drawings right before your very eyes.
| ||||
| |
|
10-18-2007, 04:23 PM
| #87 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Dylith had to do work, too. Sorry.
| ||||
| |
|
10-23-2007, 02:41 AM
| #88 | ||||
| General Asshole Moderate
| Originally Posted by AVengeance There is no philosophy there, flat out none. That's a pathetic copout and a blatantly lie to claim that. You can't even point out what's "philosophical about it!
If you wish to attempt to perpetuate that lie copout because you’ve been confronted with a clear and easy proof that there has been massive MACRO-evolutionary change over time, than you've decided to throw any and all legitimacy you've ever had as a "scientist" and on this forum. | ||||
| |
|
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
| #89 | ||||
| Noob  Republican Abilene TX
| i just read through all five pages of this stuff and looked at all of the souce stuff that was provided. First of all i would like to tell AVengeance that you are probably one of the best debaters i have ever seen in that you have been debate with at least 6 different people and held off ever argument that they put twards you and still came bake with more. and all by yourself. well now you have someone else to help you out in the little way that i can. i don't have near the knoledge you people do but i will put in what i can to see what happens. i want to say right now that wikipedia is not even close to a good source of info. for all we know any one of you could have gotten on the site and edited that into the article. that site is a very bad place to site becuase it is writen by people who don't have to do any research of anykind to put in there OPINION. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """ I would love it Av, if you could please prove this wrong. Mr. Science man. The Short Proof of Evolution We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend. Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument). The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep). The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments. The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle). Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""" i completely agree with this statement only he never once in this whole article, and yes i have read it, state where that simpler form came from. some primordial soup that came from rocks i don't think so. This is a very badly done ESSAY i might point out. it was writen by a student that didn't say where he got any of his info i am almost completely conviced that he made half if not all of it up to explain away GOD. That is all you guys are trying to do is Explain away God because if there is no God then you have control of your life even though you know just as well as i do that is not true. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" " You ever hear of Archaeopteryx? Sinosauropteryx? Shuvuuia? Caudipteryx? Dilong? Jinfengopteryx? Scansoriopteryx? That's just to name a few, there are many others. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "" these animals could simply be called members of the bird family just like an Ostrich. that is the way they were created and because they look similar doesnt mean that they came from eachother or anything like that. i also read several articals about these birds on the interent and found that in all of them they made the claim that they were birds and that they had lots of similarities to birds but they never gave any of there proof of it. such as the bone similarity or skelital similartity they just said that they were relaited to birds. Someone saying that they look like a bird or an Ostrich does not constitute proof. My last little rant would be that you are all talking about this subject as though all of the stuff you have come up with is proof. Evolution is not a fact. It is still a THEORY. Am i the only one that knows that. I would say that it takes way more Faith to Believe in evolution then in God. it is really easy to believe in him what you dont want to do is give up your supsed control over your life to Him. here is another intersting little fact that you might want to know. The entire population of the earth right now can fit i Jacksonville Florida. If we have been evolving for 3,000,000,000 years there would be about 179,000 people per square inch of land on earth. i don't think that works. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 08:56 AM
| #90 | ||||
| Left Wing Hack  Democrat Hastings, NE
| Originally Posted by SVTman Why would there be 179,000 people per square inch of land on Earth?
__________________ If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 05:31 PM
| #91 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by Simius He's basing it on population growth rate. It's a ridiculous argument because it neglects to consider the population growth rate before the Neolithic Revolution along with many other factors that have played a role in population growth rate. It's honestly one of the dumbest arguments I've read, and surprisingly, it seems to have gained popularity.
It's about as dumb as the argument, "If evolution were true, then how can it explain why Earth and Neptune rotate in opposite directions?!"
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 06:04 PM
| #92 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby Didn't the black death wipe out near 1/3 of the earths population or something crazy like that?
Besides.. populations don't grow exponentially. There is a maximum sustainable level that they tend to reach and then bounce back and forth over and under the theoretical limit. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 07:05 PM
| #93 | ||||
| Noob Republican Abilene TX
| Originally Posted by Simius if the population grew exponetialy, i am sure you did this in your freshmen science class in high school i know did, for 3,000,000,000 years how many people and not just people but animals and everything else do you think there would be.
| ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 07:11 PM
| #94 | ||||
| Noob Republican Abilene TX
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 1/3 i dought it. as a matter of fact here you go.
The Black Death: Bubonic Plague "After five years 25 million people were dead--one-third of Europe's people. " maybe that is what you were talking about. and i never heard about a population reaching a peak and stoping. drat that darn science teacher. Last edited by SVTman; 11-15-2007 at 07:29 PM. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 08:27 PM
| #95 | ||||
| Noob Republican Abilene TX
| well i have just finished reading about the Neolithic Revolution. and i would have you listen for alittle while. now what i am going to do is show the population of the earth if there was a neolithic revolution. no i am not a mathimitian so if i am wrong i am sorry please correct me. i will be getting info from several different sources on the internet. The Neolithic Revolution history of technology :: The Neolithic Revolution --* Britannica Online Encyclopedia (i know it is a snipit but it has the info i was looking for.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/xx.html now this equation is out of a math text book so youknow i am not jst making it up. T=total end pop. O=Original pop. and in this we will hav 15,000 as the Nth power because that is how many years it has been since the start of the Neolithic revolution according to the enciclopedia britanica. T=O(1+.05)to the 15,000th power. so lets plug it in. i am going to start with a population of 100 people. the artical said that people would stay in groups of about 40-60 i am going to say that there were 100 people on earth i know there were more this is for simplicity. and i am not going to give the actuall anwser becuase it would be off the page with Zeros. T=100(1+.05)to the 15000th power. that would be T=105to the 15,000th power. now for comparison 100to the 10th power is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 19,200,000,000,000,000 that lower number is the amount of SqIn on earth and considering the number above it is only to the 10th power i would venture to say that even after the Neolithic revolution you would still end up with way to many people for this earth to hold. even if you wiped out 1/3 half waythrough. now i know that you will proably say that i am a retard but i really don't care. I think that in saying that there would be 179,000 people per SqIn of land is not that far off when you really look at it. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2007, 08:34 PM
| #96 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by SVTman Populations do not deviate much from the K-Line unless they're going extinct. It's not difficult to figure out. In a basic example, imagine that cows munch on the grass, and humans munch on the cows. If humans eat all the cows, then the human population decreases. If the cow population keeps up with the humans, the cows still need to eat grass. So the cows eat all the grass. Well, now what are the cows going to eat? So the cows starve, and thus, the humans starve.
Look into population dynamics (specifically, Lotka-Volterra equations) if you're actually interested in learning about predation and how animal populations (including humans) are naturally controlled. | ||||
| |
|
11-16-2007, 01:03 AM
| #97 | |||
| Left Wing Hack Democrat Hastings, NE
|
)
