Evolution Jeopardy

[timwakefield 68]

Well they could instead believe the minds of men from 200 years ago who came up with a theory dependant on simplistic life forms, become invested in it and then seek to push every finding they discover from then on into this theory that contradicts all known scientific methods, hardly blinking an eye when confronted with realities of complexity that stretch even the most childish imagination beyond the scope of believability.

Just because something was discovered a long time ago doesn't mean it's wrong. Copernicus proved that the earth rotates around the sun like 500 years ago. Basic understandings of chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc have all changed over time. But the idea that a scientific principle is probably wrong just because it's old and "unquestioned" or whatever is totally ridiculous. Nobody is 'believing the minds of men from 500 years ago' when they practice modern astronomy. Regarding the bolded - I think I see a pretty backwards sentence there, or else you're just proving my point for me. Why should a childish imagination be able to grasp the extremely complex theory of evolution? Basically what you said is - "if it's so complex that even a child can't understand it, how can it be true?" That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Balloon guy 158]

Just because something was discovered a long time ago doesn't mean it's wrong. Copernicus proved that the earth rotates around the sun like 500 years ago. Basic understandings of chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc have all changed over time. But the idea that a scientific principle is probably wrong just because it's old and "unquestioned" or whatever is totally ridiculous. Nobody is 'believing the minds of men from 500 years ago' when they practice modern astronomy.

Not implying that something old must be wrong, I was showing that the theory of evolution was founded using bad science based on faulty beliefs about the makeup of life. Darwin based his theory when the smallest building block of life was a cell. Since then all science has tried to force everything into this theory regardless of it's validity. Of course if you believe that we came from chimps...oops recent find suggests that that theory is wrong too, looks like we came from a missing creature that chimps and apes also came from, so our connection is farther up the evolutionary tree then was previously taught in school as fact.

Regarding the bolded - I think I see a pretty backwards sentence there, or else you're just proving my point for me. Why should a childish imagination be able to grasp the extremely complex theory of evolution? Basically what you said is - "if it's so complex that even a child can't understand it, how can it be true?" That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Now you've confused me and I'm not sure what I meant..but it was whitty and obtuse, of that I'm fairly sure.

[speedz99 145]

Not implying that something old must be wrong, I was showing that the theory of evolution was founded using bad science based on faulty beliefs about the makeup of life. Darwin based his theory when the smallest building block of life was a cell. Since then all science has tried to force everything into this theory regardless of it's validity. Of course if you believe that we came from chimps...oops recent find suggests that that theory is wrong too, looks like we came from a missing creature that chimps and apes also came from, so our connection is farther up the evolutionary tree then was previously taught in school as fact.

Again, the fact that scientists can and do amend theories is a positive thing. It kind of disproves your little idea that they'll do anything to prove a theory correct even when it doesn't make sense. In the above paragraph you very succinctly prove yourself wrong, which is nice. But anyways, forgetting about the minute details...what exactly makes you think that evolution does not occur. You believe in "micro evolution", but can't seem to come up with any reason for not believing in "macro evolution" besides the very scientific "it just seems like you can't get a walrus from a bear". And when we explain that nobody is saying you get a walrus from a bear and then explain how a walrus and a bear could in fact come from an extremely distant common ancestor, you change the subject once again to crap like the above quote. So...what's your point exactly? That it's more likely god put us here with a wave of the wand and all of the evidence proving evolution is either a coincidence or his way of testing us? Just say it if that's what you think. It would make a lot more sense than your attempts to sound like your skepticism is based on the fact that you're a better scientist than those who believe in the theory. But don't say it for another 7 days...go back to the damn beach for now.For the record, I was never taught (and this goes back about 15 years) that we came directly from chimps. It was always that we shared a common ancestor. How far up on the evolutionary ladder that ancestor goes has always been a point of contention.

[speedz99 145]

Ok, BG. You're going to respond to my post. But I refuse to respond to you again while you're on vacation. So write what you want, insult my intelligence, make horrifically nonsensical points just to annoy me...but I'm done until you get home. I can't be at all responsible for distracting you from what you should be doing right now.Edit: I'm only doing this because I like you. Have fun out there.

[Balloon guy 158]

Again, the fact that scientists can and do amend theories is a positive thing. It kind of disproves your little idea that they'll do anything to prove a theory correct even when it doesn't make sense. In the above paragraph you very succinctly prove yourself wrong, which is nice. But anyways, forgetting about the minute details...what exactly makes you think that evolution does not occur. You believe in "micro evolution", but can't seem to come up with any reason for not believing in "macro evolution" besides the very scientific "it just seems like you can't get a walrus from a bear". And when we explain that nobody is saying you get a walrus from a bear and then explain how a walrus and a bear could in fact come from an extremely distant common ancestor, you change the subject once again to crap like the above quote. So...what's your point exactly? That it's more likely god put us here with a wave of the wand and all of the evidence proving evolution is either a coincidence or his way of testing us? Just say it if that's what you think. It would make a lot more sense than your attempts to sound like your skepticism is based on the fact that you're a better scientist than those who believe in the theory. But don't say it for another 7 days...go back to the damn beach for now.For the record, I was never taught (and this goes back about 15 years) that we came directly from chimps. It was always that we shared a common ancestor. How far up on the evolutionary ladder that ancestor goes has always been a point of contention.

Well my little idea wasn't that you will do anything to prove evolution right. It was that the original theory was poorly based, in fact it was wrongly based. When DNA was found, quarks neutrons etc the idea should have been scraped along with the theory that the Plaugue came from fresh air. Instead as new information came to light, the theory was reworked to fit. It was completely a case of "We know this is true, now let's look at everything through this pair of glasses." You claim this pure as the wind driven snow attitude of science, but this is pure wishful thinking, because science is run by people, and people are motivated by many different things. I can list dozens of evolutionist who will tell you that your understanding of evolution is totally wrong, that punctuated equilibrium is the only reasonable understanding because of the ubrupt fully developed lifeforms in the fossil record.The reference about chimps was because of the front page story in the WSJ yesterday about the 'new' discovery of some teeth and a hip bone that reveals a whole new class of man's ancestor ( I know they found a couple other bones, but this is their big find, they even know what color the hair was in their rendering) Plu I love that they still have neandralthal man as a classification even though that was proven bogus decades ago.I am putting together a better explanation of what I believe for you guys to tear into and will start a new thread soon. I see that I am mostly just sniping at evolution and not presenting my beliefs, this is more from not wanting to get torn to shreds by some very smart people on this board ( not you ) who are able to turn the direction into specifics which I cannot match without google, and then I'm just cutting and pasting..which is lame-oAnd the vacation is fine, 10 days in Maui with little money is mostly sitting around smoking cigars and reading by the beach anyway, so a couple hours on here isn't a real loss.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ok, BG. You're going to respond to my post. But I refuse to respond to you again while you're on vacation. So write what you want, insult my intelligence, make horrifically nonsensical points just to annoy me...but I'm done until you get home. I can't be at all responsible for distracting you from what you should be doing right now.Edit: I'm only doing this because I like you. Have fun out there.

If I think you were a good guy I wouldn't give you any response.And I bet you will respond before I return....Now you are screwed..because any response in 7 days will be too late and look dumb and if you respond now I've proven you a liar and a loser of our bet.

[vbnautilus 48]

Plu I love that they still have neandralthal man as a classification even though that was proven bogus decades ago.

lol what? remains from at least 400 different neanderthal individuals have been discovered. who told you neanderthal was bogus, your priest?

[Balloon guy 158]

lol what? remains from at least 400 different neanderthal individuals have been discovered. who told you neanderthal was bogus, your priest?

Your mom

[vbnautilus 48]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/11/05/butterflies_species/Scientists Find a Population of Butterflies That Appears To Be Splitting Into Two SpeciesAUSTIN, Texas — Breaking up may actually not be hard to do, say scientists who've found a population of tropical butterflies that may be on its way to a split into two distinct species.Polymorphic mimicry in Heliconius cydno alithea in western Ecuador, where the white form (middle left) mimics the white species Heliconius sapho (top left) and the yellow form (middle right) mimics the yellow species Heliconius eleuchia (bottom right).Image: Marcus Kronforst and Krushnamegh KunteThe cause of this particular break-up? A shift in wing color and mate preference.In a paper published this week in the journal Science, the researchers describe the relationship between diverging color patterns in Heliconius butterflies and the long-term divergence of populations into new and distinct species."Our paper provides a unique glimpse into the earliest stage of ecological speciation, where natural selection to fit the environment causes the same trait in the same population to be pushed in two different directions," says Marcus Kronforst, a Bauer Fellow in the Center for Systems Biology at Harvard University who received his doctor's degree at The University of Texas at Austin. "If this trait is also involved in reproduction, this process can have a side effect of causing the divergent subpopulations to no longer interbreed. This appears to be the process that is just beginning among Heliconius butterflies in Ecuador."

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/11/05/butterflies_species/Scientists Find a Population of Butterflies That Appears To Be Splitting Into Two SpeciesAUSTIN, Texas — Breaking up may actually not be hard to do, say scientists who've found a population of tropical butterflies that may be on its way to a split into two distinct species.Polymorphic mimicry in Heliconius cydno alithea in western Ecuador, where the white form (middle left) mimics the white species Heliconius sapho (top left) and the yellow form (middle right) mimics the yellow species Heliconius eleuchia (bottom right).Image: Marcus Kronforst and Krushnamegh KunteThe cause of this particular break-up? A shift in wing color and mate preference.In a paper published this week in the journal Science, the researchers describe the relationship between diverging color patterns in Heliconius butterflies and the long-term divergence of populations into new and distinct species."Our paper provides a unique glimpse into the earliest stage of ecological speciation, where natural selection to fit the environment causes the same trait in the same population to be pushed in two different directions," says Marcus Kronforst, a Bauer Fellow in the Center for Systems Biology at Harvard University who received his doctor's degree at The University of Texas at Austin. "If this trait is also involved in reproduction, this process can have a side effect of causing the divergent subpopulations to no longer interbreed. This appears to be the process that is just beginning among Heliconius butterflies in Ecuador."

isn't that just like a scientist - always going out and find evidence that conveniently supports his theory.

[Balloon guy 158]

isn't that just like a scientist - always going out and find evidence that conveniently supports his theory.

Look! the butterfly became a different butterfly...that proves that fish become mammals You got to love that these guys just happened to hit the butterfly on the week that it's multi-thousand year transition into a completely different speices was to come to fruition. Two weeks later and we would just have two different examples of God's creation.Lucky guys

[vbnautilus 48]

Look! the butterfly became a different butterfly...that proves that fish become mammals You got to love that these guys just happened to hit the butterfly on the week that it's multi-thousand year transition into a completely different speices was to come to fruition. Two weeks later and we would just have two different examples of God's creation.Lucky guys

Do you feel it? You are making a slow retreat. First it was: ok, animals change over time, they just don't become different species. Now it's: allright fine they can become different species, but just not different classes. You're getting there one small step at a time, just like evolution!

[speedz99 145]

If I think you were a good guy I wouldn't give you any response.And I bet you will respond before I return....Now you are screwed..because any response in 7 days will be too late and look dumb and if you respond now I've proven you a liar and a loser of our bet.

So how was the trip? Do me a favor as I sit here, miserable, in class. Post the link to the website of the best golf course you played while out there.

[Balloon guy 158]

So how was the trip? Do me a favor as I sit here, miserable, in class. Post the link to the website of the best golf course you played while out there.

Makena GolfI out drove the club pro by 3 yards on the 14th, which is a downhill, down wind drive on a par 5. I hit my drive 375 on the fly, he rolled one 372.It was the only golf I played that week. I also went snorkeling with the sea turtles, which was cool.

[Balloon guy 158]

Do you feel it? You are making a slow retreat. First it was: ok, animals change over time, they just don't become different species. Now it's: allright fine they can become different species, but just not different classes. You're getting there one small step at a time, just like evolution!

Re-read my post with a Charles Winchester the Third voice talking to a janitor at a sporting venue in Toledo.Then rethink your opinion of how 'changed' I've become.But no..butterfly becomes a butterfly...news at eleven!

[crowTrobot 2]

But no..butterfly becomes a butterfly...news at eleven!

you sound like kirk cameron saying on national TV that evolution can't be truebecause science has never found a crockoduck.

[Balloon guy 158]

you sound like kirk cameron saying on national TV that evolution can't be truebecause science has never found a crockoduck.

You try to make a point, but it keeps coming out blah blah blah

[crowTrobot 2]

You try to make a point, but it keeps coming out blah blah blah

[Balloon guy 158]

[crowTrobot 2]

that's relevant. and i don't even like dawkins that much. you're supposed to be smearing sam harris, remember?

[Balloon guy 158]

that's relevant. and i don't even like dawkins that much. you're supposed to be smearing sam harris, remember?

Sorry, I'll do much better next time

[vbnautilus 48]

Kirk Cameron, lol. Bet you wish he wasn't on your side.

[Balloon guy 158]

Kirk Cameron, lol. Bet you wish he wasn't on your side.

He's a good guy...and there are worse

[speedz99 145]

He's a good guy...

I disagree.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

That crocoduck is hilarious. The left behind movie that kirk cameron was in might be the worst movie I've ever seen. Well, except for Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.