Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    The fact this guy "KimchiNinja" refers to dog breeding as an evolution shows the gross misunderstanding of evolution. This is so hilarious.
    It is hilarious but maybe not in the way you think.

    So what are dog breeders doing then?

    What are humans who are picky about choosing a mate doing?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
      It is hilarious but maybe not in the way you think.

      So what are dog breeders doing then?

      What are humans who are picky about choosing a mate doing?
      You cannot possibly be serious. I have no words.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • Other notable "scientific theories" include:
        - Gravity
        - Black holes
        - Germ theory
        - Mendelian genetics
        - All human physiology

        To get beyond "theory" to become a scientific "law" has only truly been done by thermodynamics (Entropy, conservation of energy, equal and opposite reaction). A theory means that no one has been able to take it down, which befits almost all human knowledge.

        Regarding the fact that using scientific consensus to form one's ideas about how things really are as a sign of an "atrophied mind", this is also blatantly insane.....I would say it is much more indicative of a mature mind. A mature mind has experienced a very valuable thing in life: Being somewhere where there are people smarter than they are. The opposite is the immature mind, which believes only it is capable of original or truly introspective though, usually because they have never been around those of greater mental aptitude. This is why college, when done right (rare nowadays), really can change people. It matures their mind.

        The "appeal to authority" ridiculousness is used in almost every dead-end argument all over the debating sphere, and will get one laughed at in a professional setting such as a scientist or lawyer....About 99% of the knowledge any person has is, under this asinine logic, an "appeal to authority"....unless one has physically witnessed something, all we can do is take others' word for it. I am not a chemist, but I trust that it is likely a bad idea to go playing catch with a water balloon of nitroglycerin. I am appealing to authority in doing so, because people more versed in explosives have told me I may die if I do this.....we are living on top of the Earth, rather than inside it for instance, on our appeals to authority. I have not been in space and watched myself ascend, therefore I take others word for it that I am on top of the planet rather than inside of it. Those clouds could all be an illusion by my benevolent masters

        The opposite of those that are ramrod conformists are not the anarchists, but rather those that make a point to never take a conventional stance on anything, not based on evidence, but out of a sense of identity of a contrarian. Online, they are everywhere.

        The internet has led to a cadre of what a professor I had once called "B-league All-Stars". It comes from hockey, where a person makes a point to NEVER go up to the A-leagues, because they dominate in B. They know though that if there WERE to go to the real competition they would get buried, no longer get worshiped as the best player, overall get marginalized....so they stay in B forever to be their big fish in a small pond.

        Online research of any serious topic, from evolution to physiology to history, is full of "B-league All Stars". They are "guys with a website" that thrive on challenging, being eternal contrarians, to keep a contorted following of the laymen to worship them. One can find them in all topics, including nutrition.....but they rely on ONE big thing; never going to the A-league....never going in front of people that are in their field, know their stuff, to test their hypotheses on any big topic.

        I make a point to never listen to anyone from that crowd, on anything. My opinion is that if one has some Earth-shattering ideas on evolution, physiology, or anything remotely scientific, for them to stand in front of their peers and take the barrage. Those that don't are either cowards or charlatans (I.E. Making stuff up to those not educated enough in that area to rebut them). Either way, they don't deserve to be listened to.

        I say this because I am aware of all of the wacky stuff on evolution one can find online....these B-leaguers are wannabes and wishful thinkers that prey on the contrarian at all costs crowd. That does not mean they actually know what they are talking about.
        "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
          You cannot possibly be serious. I have no words.
          Simple questions often stump people, don't feel bad. ^^

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
            Maybe if you ignore enough of my posts without an example of a crossover your opinion will be correct. Or, maybe, if you keep postulating infinity statistics won't matter. If you can't argue against a 5th grader, what does this make you? I have literally explained this a ton of times, yet all you can keep talking about is recessive genes as a proof of evolution without an instance of crossover. All one has to do is look at the mtDNA to realize how absurd this is. Or enough of these species leaps = an unproven macro evolution. The fact this guy "KimchiNinja" refers to dog breeding as an evolution shows the gross misunderstanding of evolution. This is so hilarious.

            Argument of a standard atheist "lol you don't understand dumb bible thumper, here is a substance lacking post explaining how you're wrong with nothing but ad hominem"
            Actually all you've done "a dozen times" is babble on incoherently and demonstrate your ignorance. If you don't understand that chalking something up to genetic drift isn't an effective argument against speciation then I don't know what to tell you. Are you still standing behind your classic newb mistake of trying to apply probability backwards? Honestly I didn't even think you were that ignorant. And the "just a scientific theory"? Do you need me to explain the sheer ignorance of that phrase?

            I am saving the best for last and I'm going to slander your arguments left and right.[/QUOTE]

            Well bring it it then because so far all you've done in this thread is put on display exactly how much you do not know.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
              Simple questions often stump people, don't feel bad. ^^
              I am only stumped by the absurdity of this ignorance. The fact I haven't thoroughly lambasted you only means that I in some way feel sorry for you. I'll point you to any book on basic genetics ever, because you definitely seem to lack even beginning knowledge if you think his has ANYTHING to do with this topic.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                Other notable "scientific theories" include:
                - Gravity
                - Black holes
                Also somewhat related to this time, time exists. Time is simple but also complex. But according to Derpamix time and change thru time don't exist.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
                  Actually all you've done "a dozen times" is babble on incoherently and demonstrate your ignorance. If you don't understand that chalking something up to genetic drift isn't an effective argument against speciation then I don't know what to tell you. Are you still standing behind your classic newb mistake of trying to apply probability backwards? Honestly I didn't even think you were that ignorant. And the "just a scientific theory"? Do you need me to explain the sheer ignorance of that phrase?

                  I am saving the best for last and I'm going to slander your arguments left and right.
                  Well bring it it then because so far all you've done in this thread is put on display exactly how much you do not know.[/QUOTE]

                  OK

                  Btw, you've done entirely nothing in this thread to refute my posts. If I truly was misunderstanding, or didn't know, you'd have broken it down already. You can't even do anything as fundamental as showing me a crossover.
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                    Also somewhat related to this time, time exists. Time is simple but also complex. But according to Derpamix time and change thru time don't exist.
                    Oh boy and here comes the straw man.
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • I'll be home later. See you guys when I get back, maybe you'll have evolved into better arguers by then
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • This turned out to be more entertaining than I thought it would. I really have nothing to add about evolution. In terms of "theories" though of course they are far more than just hypothesis, but depending on what theory you are talking about and in what contexts there is nothing wrong with questioning the points that make them up. Usually theories are quite encompassing and actually become more of a framework under which we work and add to. Its like an accepted model where we are still working to fill in the holes.... if in the process of filling in the holes the framework needs modified so be it....

                        As to consensus and appeal to authority....well I rely on consensus and so forth in areas that are far outside my understanding or immediate field of expertise. In my own field or those closely connected though I would and do find relying on consensus to be a cop out. Outside of that though maybe there are some supergenius out there that can assimilate all the original data to formulate original ideas about everything, but I'm OK with admitting that ain't me.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                          I'd like to see some transitional or half-way forms between species uncovered,
                          You mean like a dinosaur with wings & feathers & a break shaped face?
                          Didn't they find a fossil like that somewhere in china a decade ago?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                            Btw, you've done entirely nothing in this thread to refute my posts. If I truly was misunderstanding, or didn't know, you'd have broken it down already. You can't even do anything as fundamental as showing me a crossover.
                            Seeing as how "crossover" is not a scientific term but rather a Creationist show of intellectual dishonesty what exactly do you want? I gave you examples of speciation. You want a bird that turns into a fish then turns into a horse then turns into a frog? That's not how evolution works, sorry. Your entire argument is based on this faulty logic.

                            The correct terminology would be transitional species which have transitional morphology. Of which there are numerous examples. Panderichthyids and Tiktaalike are both transitional forms between fish and amphibians. The latter being a transitional species between fish and land animals. Proterogyrinus and Paleothyris are transitional forms between Amphibians and Reptiles. I'm sure with your google skills you can educate yourself about them if you are so inclined. To say the above examples represent a drop in the bucket would be the understatement of the year.

                            You still have not managed to come up with a mechanism by which small scale changes somehow fall short of becoming larger scale ones. Or are you going to continue ignoring this little inconvenience?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post

                              You still have not managed to come up with a mechanism by which small scale changes somehow fall short of becoming larger scale ones. Or are you going to continue ignoring this little inconvenience?
                              Actually if I've understood Derp's argument correctly, he has described the mechanism - his position is that micro-evolution is due to expression of recessive traits that were always a part of a species' genetic makeup, not a random mutation. This mechanism would allow for selective pressure to express or suppress traits and cause physical changes in a species over time but would not allow a species to change completely into another.

                              I have nowhere near the knowledge of evolution or genetics to begin to comment on the validity of that argument, but I think that's what he is saying. (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying or totally putting incorrect words in your mouth Derpamix.)
                              __________________________________________________ _____________________________
                              Eureka5280: M / 38 / 235lbs / Goal: 180lbs

                              Diet: Currently experimenting with higher carb (Peat-esque) primal with emphasis on beef, dairy, seafood, sugar and a bit of starch on lifting days.

                              Activities: Started Stronglifts 5x5 on 3/1/14. Adding sprints and hikes soon.
                              End of Year Working Set Goals: Squats-250, Bench-200, DL-315

                              Comment


                              • Good lord..I eat the way I do because it's good food. I could not care less about cave people and what they did or didn't eat. I am just happy that hamburger helper is not part of my vocabulary or diet.

                                Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X