Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Do you think all species are the same age? That humans have been around since the beginning? I don't understand how this jives with your denial of the reality of speciation via natural selection.
    No, my pet theory is that the earth was formed in a way pretty well represented by the big bang theory. The time lines generally accepted as truth are probably pretty close to reality. And life spontaneously arose through chemical actions and we all evolved from there. What I can't wrap my mind around is how we ended up with such diversity so quickly at certain times. There were several mass extinctions and then huge life explosions with numerous new species that just seemed to appear on the scene. For instance, the first mammals appear in the fossil record in Late Triassic time, about 210 million years ago. That's not 'countless generations', I can fathom 210 million years. I can count to 210 million. What I can't believe is that 210 million years was enough time to form every mammal we have today. And why do they seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate? Are we just lucky to be living at the exact time of peak mammal production?

    It just seems to me, there is another feature to evolution we are missing. Something hidden in epigenetics. Switches that can be flipped with the right stimulus. Something that would force rapid speciation. The gradual small genetic errors, mistake by mistake small changes, at birth that are somehow heritable, just does not seem plausible to me. It would mean that in nearly every litter of mice born, there should be birth defects that continue on in the lineage. How many generations of lab mice have been born in the centuries since we have been studying mice and all we can show is OBOB mice or mice with weird colors and such--and these traits need to be coddled.

    I still say that if you put mice in a place where they could live and breed happily, 210 million years later, all you'd have is mice. Some may look funnier than others, but there would be no elephants.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by otzi View Post
      That's not 'countless generations', I can fathom 210 million years. I can count to 210 million. What I can't believe is that 210 million years was enough time to form every mammal we have today.
      Let's say you were going to live to be 100. If that's the case, you could live out 2.1 million lifetimes in that span. What amount of adaptation would you consider to be appropriate for that amount of time? And what are you basing that on except complete inability to comprehend both time and evolutionary progression?

      And you can't count to 210 million. Just sayin'.
      I got 99 problems but a pancake ain't one...

      My Journal

      Height: 6'3"
      SW (Feb 2012): 278
      SBF: 26% (Scale)
      CW (Sept 2015): 200
      CBF: 17% (Scale)

      Comment


      • #48
        Comparing a scientific theory to a made-up theory is not productive.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by accidentalpancake View Post
          And you can't count to 210 million. Just sayin'.
          I disagree. If he counts at a pace of 2 numbers per second (this will get tough once the numbers get into the nine digits, i.e. one-hundred-forty-one-million-three-hundred-forty-six-thousand-two-hundred-seventy-eight), and completely foregoes sleeping and/or any other activity that gets in the way of counting, he will get to 210 million in a little over three years.

          But it's not the 2.1 million lifetimes in the span that are relevant. It's about 5 times that much, because you don't wait until you're 100 to reproduce. So for a super complex, long-lived creature that has 20-year generation times, you get something like 10.5 million generations. Of course, for shrew-like early mammals of all types, the generation length is probably significantly shorter. Let's call it 3 years, which is probably generous. Now you have 70 million generations.

          But yeah, you can't fathom 210 million years. It's incomprehensible to our brains.
          The Champagne of Beards

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by quikky View Post
            Comparing a scientific theory to a made-up theory is not productive.
            It might be if we can just make clear for one or two people in the world that the "debate" about natural selection vs. creationism (or "intelligent design" as they sometimes now call it) is manufactured by the people who already lost the debate, to make it sound like their claims haven't been completely kicked to the curb by everyone with even a perfunctory scientific education.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              But it's not the 2.1 million lifetimes in the span that are relevant. It's about 5 times that much, because you don't wait until you're 100 to reproduce. So for a super complex, long-lived creature that has 20-year generation times, you get something like 10.5 million generations. Of course, for shrew-like early mammals of all types, the generation length is probably significantly shorter. Let's call it 3 years, which is probably generous. Now you have 70 million generations.
              I wasn't going to for the 'generation' factor. Just using the 100 years meted out consecutively as a demonstration of the time involved.
              I got 99 problems but a pancake ain't one...

              My Journal

              Height: 6'3"
              SW (Feb 2012): 278
              SBF: 26% (Scale)
              CW (Sept 2015): 200
              CBF: 17% (Scale)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by accidentalpancake View Post
                Let's say you were going to live to be 100. If that's the case, you could live out 2.1 million lifetimes in that span. What amount of adaptation would you consider to be appropriate for that amount of time? And what are you basing that on except complete inability to comprehend both time and evolutionary progression?

                And you can't count to 210 million. Just sayin'.
                Look at how many fruit flies with a lifespan of what, days, have been reared in captivity--they are still fruit flies. It's a generational thing, not a life-span thing. If I live to 100, and extremely prolific, I could produce thousands of children over the course of 85 of those years, creating far more chance for genetic errors than if I only had one kid. I think genetic errors account for some changes we see, but not the massive changes that clearly have happened in the past 210 million years.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  I disagree. If he counts at a pace of 2 numbers per second (this will get tough once the numbers get into the nine digits, i.e. one-hundred-forty-one-million-three-hundred-forty-six-thousand-two-hundred-seventy-eight), and completely foregoes sleeping and/or any other activity that gets in the way of counting, he will get to 210 million in a little over three years.
                  I inherited the ability to count without moving my lips, so I could do it in less than the time allotted, I believe.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                    +3. (It was just +1, but it speciated)
                    Breathe. Move forward.

                    I just eat what I want...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by quikky View Post
                      Comparing a scientific theory to a made-up idea is not productive.
                      There now your statement works.

                      Scientific Theory:
                      When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
                      Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by accidentalpancake View Post
                        damn you and your beardy agreement. It's always shrouded in hairy ambiguousness.
                        :-D :-D :-D

                        (Hey how come the smileys are not workin'? Wreckin' my post!)
                        Last edited by excursivey; 11-01-2013, 11:23 AM.
                        Breathe. Move forward.

                        I just eat what I want...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by otzi View Post
                          I inherited the ability to count without moving my lips, so I could do it in less than the time allotted, I believe.
                          Except if you get to one-hundred-forty-one-million-three-hundred-forty-six-thousand-two-hundred-seventy-eight and then lose your place and have to start again. In any case, you aren't going to ever count to 210,000,000. I'll bet you $210,000,000.
                          The Champagne of Beards

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
                            There now your statement works.

                            Scientific Theory:
                            When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
                            That's why I didn't preface it with "scientific"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
                              There now your statement works.

                              Scientific Theory:
                              When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
                              The problem is that in the common usage "theory" has come to mean "a defective fact", as in "It's just a theory". Combined with the common but easily disproved notion that "the less you know about something, the better you are able to come up with creative insight", as well as the idea that everybody's fanciful notion deserves as much respect as a theory supported by millions of man-hours by trained researchers, we are lucky there is any reality-based knowledge out there at all.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                                The problem is that in the common usage "theory" has come to mean "a defective fact", as in "It's just a theory". Combined with the common but easily disproved notion that "the less you know about something, the better you are able to come up with creative insight", as well as the idea that everybody's fanciful notion deserves as much respect as a theory supported by millions of man-hours by trained researchers, we are lucky there is any reality-based knowledge out there at all.
                                So true. You see this in the arts as well. A director may spend hours considering how a scene could go or how a line might be delivered and then an actor has "an idea", just in the spur of the moment and thinks it's a fresh take. Chances are that idea is one of the first 20 or so the director considered and rejected. Hubby teaches art and it's maybe even more pronounced in the visual arts: look at this squiggle I made in 10 seconds, isn't it great? It's just as good as Picasso's, isn't it?
                                Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X