|
|
At work, I had to explain that mutations happen all the time for human. For them, if a mutation happens, it must mean that there will be a third arm or something like that to happen. And these are people who did scientific studies.
Someone up-thread mentioned X-men. I suspect that most people think evolution works that way.
Why are we even talking about ID and creationism in this discussion? How has spirituality got dragged into this scientific topic?
What? Don't you know ID hasn't got anything to do with religion?
Why do big businesses lose their ethics? Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?
"Money Beats Anything". Why have ethics when you can have money?
Money is the root of all evil. They're trying to make the world a better place by limiting its distribution.
A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.
Creationists never fold their cards, no matter how many times their claims are refuted.
I remember reading about a debate where the scientist pointed out that the creationist's argument was based on a long-since refuted claim, the creationist replied that they don't rely on that claim anymore, and the scientist then asked "So why is it in the literature you're selling in the lobby?"
I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.
I suspect it's something like the reason physicists don't feel a need to have Time Cube proponentists and historians don't need holocaust deniers.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. If you don't deal in facts, science doesn't need you.
How does the theory of evolution explain the reverse entropy when everything else we can observe is moving to a more disordered state?
You should learn what the laws of thermodynamics actually say before you invoke them in an argument.
Do you consider a solar system more ordered or less ordered than the cloud it collapsed from?
And when that solar system's sun forms concentric layers of elements sorted by mass, is that more ordered or less ordered?
Does thermodynamics prevent a fertilized egg from growing into an intelligent, sentient being?
Do you ever check up on what you read in creationists tracts?
This is the part where I have never seen a real answer.
What would you consider a "real" answer to factually false claim about what physics says, supported by irrelevant arguments?
That's NOT evolution. Evolution is descent with _modification_, specifically through random mutation. Otherwise it's just population selection of existing genes. Which has never been demonstrated.
How ignorant can you be? Once you admit selection by fitness you've given away the farm, because mutations are a well established fact. IIRC the rate is so high that you probably have several variations that neither of your parents had.
Seriously, did the roaches actually evolve and pass it to their young, or did the specific roaches which HAD the sugar aversion trait simply avoid being poisoned and passed along said aversion to their offspring?
I'm kinda thinking it's the latter.
I'm kinda thinking that's evolution.
That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!
IDers accept microevolution.
Do they? Back before they got pwned all their marquee arguments[*] took the form of "this-or-that-structure-or-system could not have evolved".
If you want to defend them, maybe you should clarify what definition of microevolution they accept, and what other flavors of evolution they reject.
[*] Except for Dembski's "no free lunch" argument that evolution doesn't work any better than blind chance, which of course would apply to microevolution as well as to any other flavor.
That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!
I think he was just saying that RP isn't really a Libertarian.
We'll see how fast Libertarians kick him to the curb for this. A few posters already have, but others are invoking pretzel logic to prove that he was acting on the principles he (usually) espouses.
I agree that it's broken[*], but you won't fix it by handing the domains over to the most influential people who demand them.
[*] What if someone else named Ron Paul wanted the domain? Wouldn't he have as much claim to it as the famous Ron Paul does?
Considering recent events, I bet if this concerned a liberal instead of a libertarian, ICE would seize the domain a declare it as belonging to that liberal politician and the justices would turn a blind eye on it.
Which recent events make you want to bet that way?
...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.
So, in Libertopia someone who wants something gets to decree what makes an exchange offer unreasonable, and use some ruling body to force the other party to hand it over if they don't lower their price?
Libertopia must be nice... if you're part of the in crowd that gets whatever you want. Too bad for everyone else.
So he's a big fan of the United Nations when it suits his purposes?
But yet when it comes to ransoming someone's health care, general health, or basic safety then it's fine to let the "free market" decide what that's worth without any regulation?
Ron Paul nutters like to live in their pretend amazing free market world until it actually bites them in the ass and then it's just not fair!
Actually, for the most part, the "limited government" crowd just doesn't want anyone telling *them* what to do. This will be an outrage because the government is letting some nobody interfere with what his all-important self wants.
Ask not what's inside your head, but what your head's inside of. -- J.J. Gibson