Evolution Jeopardy

[vbnautilus 48]

oh! ooh! ooooh!!!

what is an orgasm?

[speedz99 145]

what is an orgasm?

Nice.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

science has that effect on me

[Balloon guy 158]

Basics----- Terminology-----Genetics ---- Human Evolution-----Potpourri----200-------------200---------------200-----------------200-------------------200---------400-------------400---------------400-----------------400-------------------400---------600-------------600---------------600-----------------600-------------------600---------800-------------800---------------800-----------------800-------------------800--------1000------------1000-------------1000----------------1000------------------1000----Terminology for 200. This is the word for a trait or structure which has lost most or all of its original function through evolution.

What is vestigual?Hope spelling doesn't count but I can't google until after so that's that.BTW during the scopes trial...the one where the so called science side said that evolution should be taught in school...they made the argument that the 100+ vestigular organs in the human body prove evolution...there aren't 100+ vestigular organs in the human body, but what's a little fact when you are dealing with teaching children?

[Balloon guy 158]

science has that effect on me

Be careful or it will blind you.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Be careful or it will blind you.

nicethat's some layered shit right there.

[vbnautilus 48]

What is vestigual?

Pretty sure it's vestigial. I hope Alex is in a good mood today and accepts this answer.

BTW during the scopes trial...the one where the so called science side said that evolution should be taught in school...they made the argument that the 100+ vestigular organs in the human body prove evolution...there aren't 100+ vestigular organs in the human body, but what's a little fact when you are dealing with teaching children?

180 was the number brought up in the trial. So they were only off by 174. Such a nitpicker.

[Alex_Trebek 0]

What is vestigual?

Vestigial, yes. Balloon Guy: -2600

[speedz99 145]

BTW during the scopes trial...the one where the so called science side said that evolution should be taught in school...they made the argument that the 100+ vestigular organs in the human body prove evolution...there aren't 100+ vestigular organs in the human body, but what's a little fact when you are dealing with teaching children?

And I, for one, think that the scientific community should have stuck with this part of the theory for as long as possible...until the end of time, really. And if anyone tried to prove it incorrect by means of logic, the scientific method, etc., they should have called on great men of faith like yourself to teach them how to hold on to antiquated ideas by any means necessary. Stupid scientists, finding faults in their own theories by actually examining them with some objectivity. Ridiculous!

[Balloon guy 158]

And I, for one, think that the scientific community should have stuck with this part of the theory for as long as possible...until the end of time, really. And if anyone tried to prove it incorrect by means of logic, the scientific method, etc., they should have called on great men of faith like yourself to teach them how to hold on to antiquated ideas by any means necessary. Stupid scientists, finding faults in their own theories by actually examining them with some objectivity. Ridiculous!

Or stupid scientist, coming up with a theory using false facts, then spending the next few decades pretending that they came up with this theory based on...truth

[vbnautilus 48]

Or stupid scientist, coming up with a theory using false facts, then spending the next few decades pretending that they came up with this theory based on...truth

But if you think about it, the existence of a single vestigial organ is enough. How many of them exist is not particularly important to the theory. I'm curious, how does creationism explain the appendix, the coccyx, and goose bumps?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

But if you think about it, the existence of a single vestigial organ is enough. How many of them exist is not particularly important to the theory. I'm curious, how does creationism explain the appendix, the coccyx, and goose bumps?

I think it's against it.... right?

[Balloon guy 158]

But if you think about it, the existence of a single vestigial organ is enough. How many of them exist is not particularly important to the theory. I'm curious, how does creationism explain the appendix, the coccyx, and goose bumps?

Thought that the appendix was a part of the immune system?Goose bumps are a reaction to coldAnd the coccyz is a young seaman who steers the ship?Or is it that thing that ligaments, muscles and tendons are attached too? Also a useful sitting tool.I forget which one.

[Balloon guy 158]

But I do love the ease with which evolutionist can just accept the notion that appendages and organs just come and go on creatures in a willy nilly fashion depnding on some random occurance of mutation and fine tuned with natural selection.Sure must be nice to imagine a pre-bird, having a 2/3rds developed wing for a couple hundred generations until it developes into a wing that actually works, right at the same time the instincts to fly develop.Hey looks like we won't be needing that third leg, guess we'll let it slowly mutate out of this creature. Hope none of the high school graduation pictures show poor ecoplatumises with those stubby undeveloped legs that won't serve any purpose for, oh say, 4,000 more years. Luckily naturaly selection has a purpose behind it and doesn't discard those underdeveloped appendages before they become functioning.Of course, goose bumps could have survived when our tails did not because natural selection has a wicked sense of irony.

[vbnautilus 48]

Thought that the appendix was a part of the immune system?

Well it is mostly a useless structure that used to be involved in digesting leaves and such but has wasted away over the course of evolution as we stopped eating that crap. Some recent studies have suggested a secondary role in immune function, but that doesn't seem to be its primary purpose -- anatomically it looks pretty much like a reduced cecum, an herbivore digestive organ.

Goose bumps are a reaction to cold

But for what purpose? In other animals this reaction results in piloerection, which helps the hairs trap in heat, but since we have lost most of our hair that is no longer a consequence for us.

And the coccyz is a young seaman who steers the ship?Or is it that thing that ligaments, muscles and tendons are attached too? Also a useful sitting tool.I forget which one.

It's the seaman.

[speedz99 145]

Or stupid scientist, coming up with a theory using false facts, then spending the next few decades pretending that they came up with this theory based on...truth

That can't really be how you interpret errors in scientific theories, can it? The whole point is that you constantly try to learn more...it's not "based on truth", it's trying to lead towards truth. You know, as opposed to just believing that a really old book speaks the truth and then working backwards to try and validate it.To each his own, but it's extraordinarily silly to think that pointing out old flaws in scientific theories that have since been corrected is proof that science is somehow invalid. I'm sure there are many more minor flaws in commonly held theories...but again, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theories themselves. Really, the only event or discovery that could prove the theory of evolution 100% incorrect would be the appearance of an alien being (you can call him "god" if you want) who can prove that he or she not only created everything on Earth, but did so in such a way that made it appear by any rational standards that life on this planet had evolved on its own (in order to trick us or test our faith or whatever). Once that happens, you will no longer look like you're stuck in denial when questioning the theory of evolution. And on that day my cap will be tipped to you, my friend.

[vbnautilus 48]

Really, the only event or discovery that could prove the theory of evolution 100% incorrect would be the appearance of an alien being (you can call him "god" if you want) who can prove that he or she not only created everything on Earth, but did so in such a way that made it appear by any rational standards that life on this planet had evolved on its own (in order to trick us or test our faith or whatever). Once that happens, you will no longer look like you're stuck in denial when questioning the theory of evolution. And on that day my cap will be tipped to you, my friend.

Right, at this point there is so much evidence for evolution that it would take some extraordinary evidence to lead to abandonment of the theory. But it is important to note that such extreme evidence was not required when the theory was first formulated. There could have been many, much simpler forms of evidence to invalidate the theory -- for instance there could have been a lack of evidence of previous lifeforms in the fossil record, there could have been no homology across related species, dating methods could have put the age of the earth at 6,000 years which would be too short a period for evolution to have occurred, etc. etc. The theory was falsifiable (a good thing for theories to be), but has not been falsified.

[Balloon guy 158]

Right, at this point there is so much evidence for evolution that it would take some extraordinary evidence to lead to abandonment of the theory. But it is important to note that such extreme evidence was not required when the theory was first formulated. There could have been many, much simpler forms of evidence to invalidate the theory -- for instance there could have been a lack of evidence of previous lifeforms in the fossil record, there could have been no homology across related species, dating methods could have put the age of the earth at 6,000 years which would be too short a period for evolution to have occurred, etc. etc. The theory was falsifiable (a good thing for theories to be), but has not been falsified.

So you are claiming that using the data they had at the time...smallest building block of all life was the cell, earth was probably around 20-40 million years old, 184 vestigial organs etc. That using that data they came to a soundly based theory for the origin of life that wasn't based more on a 'anything but God' desire?Put another way, if a man claims the earth was round in 400 bc because he said a bird told him, that theory is given credance by you because it happened to be true? You wouldn't instead say: Even a broke clock etc.I'm not saying evolutionist are closing their eyes and sticking their heads in the sand, I'm just pointing out that your whole theory has been one wrong conclusion after another and you guys all act like it's infallible. Sorry, but Peking man Neandrathal, Java, the Coelacanth, and Richard dawkins all point to failed attempts at proving what you already want to believe.

[Balloon guy 158]

That can't really be how you interpret errors in scientific theories, can it? The whole point is that you constantly try to learn more...it's not "based on truth", it's trying to lead towards truth. You know, as opposed to just believing that a really old book speaks the truth and then working backwards to try and validate it.To each his own, but it's extraordinarily silly to think that pointing out old flaws in scientific theories that have since been corrected is proof that science is somehow invalid. I'm sure there are many more minor flaws in commonly held theories...but again, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theories themselves. Really, the only event or discovery that could prove the theory of evolution 100% incorrect would be the appearance of an alien being (you can call him "god" if you want) who can prove that he or she not only created everything on Earth, but did so in such a way that made it appear by any rational standards that life on this planet had evolved on its own (in order to trick us or test our faith or whatever). Once that happens, you will no longer look like you're stuck in denial when questioning the theory of evolution. And on that day my cap will be tipped to you, my friend.

See above but I am not stating that because the entire scientific community started the entire theory of evolution on false premises and failed conclusions that that therefore makes all current theories wrong. That would be a silly basis for why I think you guys are wrong. I'm just pointing out that you guys have been wrong more than right and should be a little more humble about your authority in this matter. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses stopped picking dates for the return of Christ after the 1st 5 times were wrong...

[Balloon guy 158]

Well it is mostly a useless structure that used to be involved in digesting leaves and such but has wasted away over the course of evolution as we stopped eating that crap. Some recent studies have suggested a secondary role in immune function, but that doesn't seem to be its primary purpose -- anatomically it looks pretty much like a reduced cecum, an herbivore digestive organ.

Didn't know we stopped eating salads and that mostly useless is exactly the same as completely useless. You should be proud that science once thought that the appendix was completely useless, but has since accepted that they were wrong, just like the other 180+ things they accused of being useless.

But for what purpose? In other animals this reaction results in piloerection, which helps the hairs trap in heat, but since we have lost most of our hair that is no longer a consequence for us.

I guess natural selection isn't the efficiant method you guys get away with proclaiming? Apparently it is truely random in it's willy nilly method of adding and subtracting entire organs, appendages and shapes of life forms.Wow we are lucky that the random nature had such 'seeming' purpose in our design to date, all those changes and only one failure..maybe two if you count small peni.

It's the seaman.

That was a freudian test..you can judge your own results.

[speedz99 145]

I'm just pointing out that you guys have been wrong more than right and should be a little more humble about your authority in this matter.

I'm not sure I agree that science has been wrong more than right when you look at the big picture, but I see what you're saying. The only thing is that the argument here isn't about the nuts and bolts of what each possibly vestigial organ does in the human body...it's about whether the overarching theory itself is one that can still realistically be questioned without just coming out and saying "I believe in God because that's what I believe, and all your evidence is just His way of testing our faith".

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses stopped picking dates for the return of Christ after the 1st 5 times were wrong...

Quitters.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not sure I agree that science has been wrong more than right when you look at the big picture, but I see what you're saying. The only thing is that the argument here isn't about the nuts and bolts of what each possibly vestigial organ does in the human body...it's about whether the overarching theory itself is one that can still realistically be questioned without just coming out and saying "I believe in God because that's what I believe, and all your evidence is just His way of testing our faith".

I notice that you seem to assume that the only way to not believe in evolution is to be shallow in your argument. I guess this partly is because I haven't really expressed my argument, and you are convince that evolution is correct.If you are willing to realize that many smart people are completely comfortable believing in God, then maybe you can keep an open mind about the possibility that darwinian evolution is filled with holes that even science can't fix by being convinced that it has already found all the truth of where life comes from and where it's going.

[speedz99 145]

I notice that you seem to assume that the only way to not believe in evolution is to be shallow in your argument. I guess this partly is because I haven't really expressed my argument, and you are convince that evolution is correct.

Well, I know your argument...it's that the bible is right and science is wrong about any divergences between the two, right? God created the Universe, our planet, Adam, Eve, etc., about 6,000 years ago. I'm not trying to be glib, that's just the basis of what I'm judging your argument on. If there's something deeper than that, I'm all ears.I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is correct, yes. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept it if proven wrong. That's how science works, as evidenced by the vestigial organ thing, which is great.

If you are willing to realize that many smart people are completely comfortable believing in God, then maybe you can keep an open mind about the possibility that darwinian evolution is filled with holes that even science can't fix by being convinced that it has already found all the truth of where life comes from and where it's going.

I'm not sure what exactly what holes you're referring to, but yeah, there are minor areas still under contention, another reason why I think the scientific method is a beautiful thing. I don't believe that science knows exactly where life "comes from", per say (or at least I don't understand it). I also don't believe that scienctists claim to know where it is going. And certainly nobody here is claiming to have found "all of the truth". You're putting words in our mouths.At the core of our discussion, all we're realistically talking about here is "does evolution take place" and "did humans evolve from something else", right? You don't care about the evolution of various finches halfway around the world, you just want to hold to the claim that you personally are something created in God's image, by God himself. And I can say with 99.999% certainty that you are incorrect. I will keep that 0.0001% chance out there just in case God does show up to give a big, "GOTCHA!"And even though I can physically prove so much about my argument, while all you can do is point to a 2,000 year old book and some hand-me-down stories, I bet that I keep my mind more open to new possibilities than you. So it's slightly back-asswards for you to request that I keep an open mind. Know what I'm saying?Edit: Oh, and I'm totally comfortable with the fact that many very intelligent people believe in god. There's no doubt about that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, I know your argument...it's that the bible is right and science is wrong about any divergences between the two, right? God created the Universe, our planet, Adam, Eve, etc., about 6,000 years ago. I'm not trying to be glib, that's just the basis of what I'm judging your argument on. If there's something deeper than that, I'm all ears.I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is correct, yes. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept it if proven wrong. That's how science works, as evidenced by the vestigial organ thing, which is great. I'm not sure what exactly what holes you're referring to, but yeah, there are minor areas still under contention, another reason why I think the scientific method is a beautiful thing. I don't believe that science knows exactly where life "comes from", per say (or at least I don't understand it). I also don't believe that scienctists claim to know where it is going. And certainly nobody here is claiming to have found "all of the truth". You're putting words in our mouths.At the core of our discussion, all we're realistically talking about here is "does evolution take place" and "did humans evolve from something else", right? You don't care about the evolution of various finches halfway around the world, you just want to hold to the claim that you personally are something created in God's image, by God himself. And I can say with 99.999% certainty that you are incorrect. I will keep that 0.0001% chance out there just in case God does show up to give a big, "GOTCHA!"And even though I can physically prove so much about my argument, while all you can do is point to a 2,000 year old book and some hand-me-down stories, I bet that I keep my mind more open to new possibilities than you. So it's slightly back-asswards for you to request that I keep an open mind. Know what I'm saying?Edit: Oh, and I'm totally comfortable with the fact that many very intelligent people believe in god. There's no doubt about that.

Pretty standard, the idea that evolution is sure, that therefore anyone who thinks different must be basing their ideas on simplistic superstition and not on science. I can understand why you think this way, after all, you have been conditioned to think this way since childhood.And keeping that .0001% chance open is supposed to clear you for the option that maybe mankind has not cracked the secrets of the universe enough to say with authority that we know what's going on. I guess it's a defensive reaction to that part of your mind that wonders if maybe the level of understanding we have leaves us greatly lacking in our ability to make any definitive statement, but our ignorance prevents us from even being able to uderstand how much we don't know.Surprisingly this fits exactly along with the way that science was when they were 99.999% sure about their invention of the theory of evolution without even knowing the complexity or even the existance of DNA, and when they were sure that 40 million years was more than enough time for man to evolve from a single cell organism.

[speedz99 145]

Pretty standard, the idea that evolution is sure, that therefore anyone who thinks different must be basing their ideas on simplistic superstition and not on science. I can understand why you think this way, after all, you have been conditioned to think this way since childhood.

Oh, I didn't realize that you're basing your conclusions on science and not glorified superstition. I'm actually laughing out loud right now, so thank you. It's almost as if you're insinuating that your entire view on life is based on an intellectual curiosity and natural skepticism of science...as opposed to, you know, the truth. Cute.I love it. And yes, since childhood I have been conditioned to think about things instead of just believing everything I hear...hell, my sacreligious jew-school teacher didn't even bother to scold me when I was a kid and came to the conclusion that ridiculous stories like Noah's Ark were probably written to teach lessons, not because they actually happened. She actually admitted that it was quite possible this was the case. Craziness! But she's going to hell for being a jew anyway, so whatever. Wait...you must be kidding. You're kidding. Dammit. (that word is italicized to leave open the 0.0001% chance that god once again broke the laws of nature and left us no proof because that's how he rolls. what a nut!)

And keeping that .0001% chance open is supposed to clear you for the option that maybe mankind has not cracked the secrets of the universe enough to say with authority that we know what's going on. I guess it's a defensive reaction to that part of your mind that wonders if maybe the level of understanding we have leaves us greatly lacking in our ability to make any definitive statement, but our ignorance prevents us from even being able to uderstand how much we don't know.

Nope, once again not what I said. I very specifically said that we don't know a lot about what's going on in the Universe. You're either not reading or not understanding or possibly just messing around with me because you're the greatest joke account of all time.

Surprisingly this fits exactly along with the way that science was when they were 99.999% sure about their invention of the theory of evolution without even knowing the complexity or even the existance of DNA, and when they were sure that 40 million years was more than enough time for man to evolve from a single cell organism.

Hey look, once again scientists kept open minds and amended the theory based on new evidence. Crazy how that works. Your new strategy of pointing out very old flaws in the theory isn't working very well. You keep proving my point...that scientists admit to not knowing everything about everything and are willing to keep open minds while they keep working towards a greater understanding of whatever they happen to be working on. I appreciate your help, but we already know that science is the coolest.