Page 16 of 42 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 411

Thread: Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution? page 16

  1. #151
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Primal Fuel
    Oh, and Rich, let me know when you find your first specimen of a human being, or any animal, that has taken on the characteristics of any other, eg a human being that has grown wings and can mate across species with other birds. Until then I'll continue believing that you have a woeful misunderstanding of the whole macro vs micro topic. Keep praying on your Dawkins bible until then.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  2. #152
    TheyCallMeLazarus's Avatar
    TheyCallMeLazarus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    917
    At root is the concept of speciation, in which an entirely new species is made from existing ones. By species though, all that truly has to apply is that the animals do not mate with one another. It does not, in nature, necessarily have to take on the scientific ideal that their gametes will literally NOT cause blastula formation.

    Examples of this are literally everywhere, of speciation:

    1) Mule dear and whitetail deer, blacktail deer, elk....all of these are thought to be VERY recent breakoffs of a common ancestor, and their continued speciation is seen everywhere that the species co-exist. In part of the American West, for example, whitetail deer are under tremendous predation pressure. Because of this, as I can attest to personally, whitetails out there are typically larger than they are found elsewhere. They also have larger ears, as many of the large predators found there give strong selection pressure to it. Contrasting this to the whitetails where I live, there is a strong selection pressure here to be mobile, faster, as starvation and smaller animal predation is the pressure.....make no mistake; this is MACRO-evolution at work. These are now two totally different species, with different mating patterns, size, physiology, WITH mixed-breeding of the larger whitetails....this actually gives even more genetic advantage, as a whitetail that is large enough, big-eared enough, are found to mate with MULE deer. This produces a genetically superior offspring, as the fawn is larger than its competition. It has occurred over many generations even recently, with marked speciation.

    One can apply this same process to squirrel (gray vs red, now different species that do not mate with one another), salmon (sockeye vs keta), foxes, etc....all of these are showing active speciation.

    2) The debate about where micro becomes macro is as old as evolution itself. The overwhelming consensus is that this line is completely artificial, and has never been accurately defined....what if one set of bears decides to move to higher elevations in a given place for food reasons, just by chance....and only the offspring that are large enough to now be able to take on the prey at that elevation, with the normal high culling rate in nature....and if over many generations the higher elevation, now more predator-like bears will no longer mate with the smaller ones down below.....is this a new species? Most would say yes, as I have just described black vs brown bears. In many places though, they intermingle, and DO interbreed. This is the key, the intermediate step.

    3) Describing evolution in Darwinian terms is indeed a false argument, as the science has progressed so far since then....the REAL question for skeptics of macro-evolution is much simpler: find peer-reviewed studies by multiple scientists that have successfully challenged and won the debate in proving it does not exist....so far, this has not happened.

    4) The idea that "ergo, God exists" is an absurdity, especially in an argument set upon the idea of "irreducible complexity". In order for their to be a complex God, there must have been an even MORE complex God that it came from. If this is not the case, then the idea that there must be a "beginning to everything" has collapsed.

    5) Overall, I am not arrogant enough to believe that I alone have discovered truths that much smarter men and women have not thought of, put forth, and had defeated. I believe that evolution exists not out of conformity, but out of respect for the fact that all of these questions have been asked for 150 years without success. I do not claim to understand all about evolution, as no one probably should, but I am a believer in consensus. It has been said that there are far more scientists that have successfully challenged key parts of the the theory of relativity, or newtonian gravity, than have successfully challenged evolution. In other words, if we are questioning even these ideas with such audacity, one may as well attempt to discredit thermodynamics or mendelian genetics. Evolution is a much harder target than either.
    "They now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." - Thomas Jefferson, 1826

  3. #153
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    I'm short on time, but I implore you to look for the mtDNA differences in everything you're postulating before asserting such is a brand new "species" that has crossed over, then ponder the horse and the mule. Furthermore, ponder gene depletion, mendelian genetics, et al.

    I don't know why it's suddenly an "audacity" to be skeptical of something so full of holes that it's still referred to as a "scientific theory".

    I will never be satisfied by this "evidence", regardless of how brilliant you claim these men are. This is called appeal to authority, and a sign of an atrophied mind.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  4. #154
    MaceyUK's Avatar
    MaceyUK is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Gloucestershire UK
    Posts
    499
    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
    Theory means as good as it's gonna get in Science. I am the first to argue with a hypothesis as a means to test it. there has to be a point where you say " Fair enough, it can't be any other way" Smoking causing cancer is a theory the Earth being a sphere is a theory.
    Man seeks to change the foods available in nature to suit his tastes, thereby putting an end to the very essence of life contained in them.
    www.primaljoy.co.uk

  5. #155
    jammies's Avatar
    jammies is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post

    I don't know why it's suddenly an "audacity" to be skeptical of something so full of holes that it's still referred to as a "scientific theory".
    Best to avoid that particular argument. It clearly demonstrates that you have no working knowledge of the scientific process.
    Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

  6. #156
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by jammies View Post
    Best to avoid that particular argument. It clearly demonstrates that you have no working knowledge of the scientific process.
    Tu quoque, god damn absurd. You people can't argue at all, and when you ignore literally every criticism thrown, simply saying "lol it's too beyond you" does nothing.

    Look at my other posts.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  7. #157
    0Angel0's Avatar
    0Angel0 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Tu quoque, god damn absurd. You people can't argue at all, and when you ignore literally every criticism thrown, simply saying "lol it's too beyond you" does nothing.

    Look at my other posts.
    It's like arguing with a fifth grader. You use backwards probability, incorrectly label speciation events as "genetic drift" (as if genetic drift isn't one of the mechanisms in certain instances), finches and pigeons are all the same species and every Biologist knows this, humans don't sprout wings ergo evolution is for poopy pants, and then drop the "just a scientific theory"....the classic mantra of the uninformed. You have demonstrated you not only lack the fundamental understandings of basic tenants of Evolution but the entire Scientific Method as well.

    It's ridiculous. What else is there to argue? Whether or not the toothy fairy should raise payments in response to inflation? How is Santa going to survive Global Climate Change?

  8. #158
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    It's common sense that all things had a beginning, something doesn't come from nothing, ergo God exists.
    Lao Tsu, who wrote the second most popular book in the world (right after the bible) pointed out that -- "people think that something comes from something, but actually something comes from nothing, nothingness is the source of all things".

  9. #159
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Let's use math then, as you've said is not an opinion. theta-x-174 is a small bacterial virus with approx. 5,375 nucleotides in its DNA, and there are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria. There is more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondria DNA molecule, with approx. 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammal cell…
    Derpamix, you don't believe in evolution, done. No need to make up a bunch of complex sounding stuff to act like you have a scientific basis, you're basis is religion.

  10. #160
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,007
    Quote Originally Posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    Lol. Says the guy with a dinosaur as his avatar...;P
    HA!

    Q: if evolution doesn't exist what are dog breeders doing?

Page 16 of 42 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •