121 replies to this topic

[Wd40z]

Grilleds, on 07 June 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

What about the "Creation Evidence Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas?
Or this link, which argues that half of Texans do not believe in evolution:
http://conservationr...-a-documentary/

You also live in the same state that changed its textbooks recently to downplay Thomas Jefferson's role in history and make the founding fathers seem more Christian. Might be worth pointing out that Thomas Jefferson was the man who coined the term "Separation of Church and State" and that most of our founding fathers were deists.

Then there is other hijinks like this:
http://conservationr...onal-standards/

A entire MUSEUM on Creationism?
WOw, and I thought Georgia had it hard, then again, I don't care, I'm from Ohio.
Well, people down here just party, make music, and work down here, atleast the part I'm in.
All the rich people driving in their luxury cars, motorcycles, Ferrari, Bentlys, every damn night.

But of course, it's too much evidence on evolution, hands down.
That's what went down!

True story, I had a friend from Texas, name was Micah, he used to play Pokemon ALOT, and one day, his family found out the Pokemon evolve, they made him throw it out, back then, I was 11, no idea what hat was about, but this may be the case.

[bobbert4ever]

Yes. I believe in evolution greatly, how else can you explain how we look alike to our parents? And how past fossils resemble current species? It all fits together almost perfectly. It is getting harder and harder for people to deny evolution.

[AlphaQ]

http://video.google....979886246414114

[fading sun]

I actually watched a bit of the video until

Quote

Some scientists credit the fact that humans stand upright because of the natural grasslands they had to look over. This can be seen as Lamarkism.

Nope, that's not Lamarkism. I'm pretty sure the guy just took the scientists' words out of context and made it sound like Lamarkism.

Even so, a lot of his arguments appear to be skeptical of science and aren't entirely flawed. Still, the logic he presents is pretty bad.

[AlphaQ]

fading sun, on 02 October 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

I actually watched a bit of the video until


Nope, that's not Lamarkism. I'm pretty sure the guy just took the scientists' words out of context and made it sound like Lamarkism.

Even so, a lot of his arguments appear to be skeptical of science and aren't entirely flawed. Still, the logic he presents is pretty bad.

3:08
"There is a counter-concept which was known as Lamarckism. Now, Lamarck taught that the animals tried to reach the higher branches and eventually their necks got longer."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism:
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance).

5:03
"And one of the theories that they have as to why man began walking upright is that he lived in a time when the grasslands took over, right? And so they couldn't see over the grass, and what did they do? They stood up on their hind legs to look over the grass, and this, eventually, led to the development of upright gait. Is that Darwinism or Lamarckism? That's Lamarckism."

[pegasaurus]

Quote

Some scientists credit the fact that humans stand upright because of the natural grasslands they had to look over. This can be seen as Lamarkism.

Yeah... no.

The real reason behind our upright nature is because as foraging and gathering became less reliable as a food source, humans needed a more reliable source of food. This led to the necessity of hunting. However, running on all fours is actually more energy consuming than running in an upright position. Those who's body tended to favor the 4 legged position died off while those with body types favoring an upright position tended to survive.

Evolution.
Fuck yeah.

[AlphaQ]

pegasaurus, on 03 October 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

Yeah... no.

The real reason behind our upright nature is because as foraging and gathering became less reliable as a food source, humans needed a more reliable source of food. This led to the necessity of hunting. However, running on all fours is actually more energy consuming than running in an upright position. Those who's body tended to favor the 4 legged position died off while those with body types favoring an upright position tended to survive.

Lamarckism.
Fuck yeah.

fix'd

[Grilleds]

AlphaQ, on 03 October 2011 - 03:28 AM, said:

fix'd

How the hell is that Lamarckism?

[fading sun]

AlphaQ, on 03 October 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

3:08
"There is a counter-concept which was known as Lamarckism. Now, Lamarck taught that the animals tried to reach the higher branches and eventually their necks got longer."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism:
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance).

5:03
"And one of the theories that they have as to why man began walking upright is that he lived in a time when the grasslands took over, right? And so they couldn't see over the grass, and what did they do? They stood up on their hind legs to look over the grass, and this, eventually, led to the development of upright gait. Is that Darwinism or Lamarckism? That's Lamarckism."

Dude, I know what Lamarkism is. I'm just saying that example of Lamarckism is invalid. Even if it is not, there exists an alternative, more credible explanation for human evolution: the apes that couldn't see over the grass without standing on their hind legs were killed because they couldn't react quickly enough. While certain apes, perhaps, had a mutation that enabled them to see further into the distance because they had a straighter gait.

I'm not saying this is the actual explanation, it's just a more Darwinist one.

Anyways, this argument's pretty pointless because no matter which side of the argument you're on, you will always believe that side--no matter what objective evidence is given.

Tl;dr science is better than mystical theism because at least people try and make an effort to prove and disprove theories whereas theists just believe what they want and provide no evidence for it.

Also, I love how that guy deconstructs (or at least, attempts to, I watched more of it and the biology he uses is completely ass backwards and would definitely appeal to somebody who didn't know a single thing about biology) scientific theory and yet really provides no alternative to it.

Nice to see you Grilleds.

[AlphaQ]

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 04:13 AM, said:

Dude, I know what Lamarkism is. I'm just saying that example of Lamarckism is invalid. Even if it is not, there exists an alternative, more credible explanation for human evolution: the apes that couldn't see over the grass without standing on their hind legs were killed because they couldn't react quickly enough. While certain apes, perhaps, had a mutation that enabled them to see further into the distance because they had a straighter gait.

I'm not saying this is the actual explanation, it's just a more Darwinist one.

Anyways, this argument's pretty pointless because no matter which side of the argument you're on, you will always believe that side--no matter what objective evidence is given.

Tl;dr science is better than mystical theism because at least people try and make an effort to prove and disprove theories whereas theists just believe what they want and provide no evidence for it.

Also, I love how that guy deconstructs (or at least, attempts to, I watched more of it and the biology he uses is completely ass backwards and would definitely appeal to somebody who didn't know a single thing about biology) scientific theory and yet really provides no alternative to it.

"They stood up on their hind legs to look over the grass, and this, eventually, led to the development of upright gait. Is that Darwinism or Lamarckism?"
"Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring."
Invalid?

"...mutation..." See video.

"...the biology he uses is completely ass backwards..." Example?

[fading sun]

AlphaQ, on 03 October 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:

"They stood up on their hind legs to look over the grass, and this, eventually, led to the development of upright gait. Is that Darwinism or Lamarckism?"
"Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring."
Invalid?

"...mutation..." See video.

"...the biology he uses is completely ass backwards..." Example?

Dude.

I said I knew what Lamarkism. I took biology for two years. I wasn't saying that a certain mutation had to be acquired, I'm saying is a MUTATION. An organism has an inherent flaw from BIRTH that gives it an advantage over other ones and that trait then becomes the dominant one. There's not much to be confused about here.

And yeah, he says somewhere along the lines that enzymes are required to produce amino acids and visa versa. This is WRONG. Outright wrong actually. Enzymes are just the catalyst for amino acids to react :/

There's no point in arguing here. I've already stated what I believe and it's pretty clear that you won't agree no matter what I say.

[AlphaQ]

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 04:38 AM, said:

Dude.

I said I knew what Lamarkism. I took biology for two years. I wasn't saying that a certain mutation had to be acquired, I'm saying is a MUTATION. An organism has an inherent flaw from BIRTH that gives it an advantage over other ones and that trait then becomes the dominant one. There's not much to be confused about here.

"I'm just saying that example of Lamarckism is invalid."?

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 04:38 AM, said:

And yeah, he says somewhere along the lines that enzymes are required to produce amino acids and visa versa. This is WRONG. Outright wrong actually. Enzymes are just the catalyst for amino acids to react :/

15:08
"PLUS, even if you get the amino acids, how do you get them to come together? And join together? You need enzymes for that. That means, you need a protein, to make a protein, so who was first? The protein or the protein that makes the protein? So it's a bit of a problem."

"he says somewhere along the lines that enzymes are required to produce amino acids and visa versa." = WRONG

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 04:38 AM, said:

There's no point in arguing here. I've already stated what I believe and it's pretty clear that you won't agree no matter what I say.

I'm only correcting the mistakes I see in your posts. I'm not even putting forth my own arguments.

[fading sun]

AlphaQ, on 03 October 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

"I'm just saying that example of Lamarckism is invalid."?



15:08
"PLUS, even if you get the amino acids, how do you get them to come together? And join together? You need enzymes for that. That means, you need a protein, to make a protein, so who was first? The protein or the protein that makes the protein? So it's a bit of a problem."

"he says somewhere along the lines that enzymes are required to produce amino acids and visa versa." = WRONG



I'm only correcting the mistakes I see in your posts. I'm not even putting forth my own arguments.

Sorry if I don't remember the lecture word for word. My statement still stands though: the science is invalid.

[peregrin]

ITT AlphaQ hasn't studied genetics. I bet he doesn't even know what a phenotype is without looking it up on wikipedia...

Adorable~

[fading sun]

peregrin, on 03 October 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

ITT AlphaQ hasn't studied genetics. I bet he doesn't even know what a phenotype is without looking it up on wikipedia...

Adorable~

He's so cute~
Then again, it's easy to get misled by this guy's lecture if you don't have knowledge of biology.

[AlphaQ]

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 05:01 AM, said:

Sorry if I don't remember the lecture word for word. My statement still stands though: the science is invalid.

Then kindly provide an actual example where the science is invalid.

[AlphaQ]

peregrin, on 03 October 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

ITT AlphaQ hasn't studied genetics. I bet he doesn't even know what a phenotype is without looking it up on wikipedia...

Adorable~

You're right, but the argument is not my own. Therefore, attack the arguments rather than attack me.

[fading sun]

AlphaQ, on 03 October 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

Then kindly provide an actual example where the science is invalid.

I already did. Whatever he said about proteins and enzymes I know is wrong for a fact.

Anyways, my work here is done.

[AlphaQ]

fading sun, on 03 October 2011 - 05:45 AM, said:

I already did. Whatever he said about proteins and enzymes I know is wrong for a fact.

Anyways, my work here is done.

What is wrong with what he said about proteins and enzymes? Please elaborate. Your previous statement was due to a misrepresentation of his statements thus they are inapplicable to this new assertion.

[fading sun]

Eh, this is getting old.

tl;dr Enzymes are just needed to catalyze the reaction that forms an amino acid, which is essentially the building block of a strand of protein. Proteins are then used for enzymes.

While it looks like a "chicken or egg scenario," it really isn't. While enzymes catalyze a reaction, you don't need them. Therefore, you could still have basic amino acids without enzymes.