Posts: 87
Join Date: Jun 2008
IGN: creative
Server: Aibatt
06-23-2008, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Slick
Evolution might have happened. I'm not saying it's false I'm saying that there will never be solid proof, you understand? I'm saying why teach something that doesn't have proof? Math doesn't need proof of any existence. Because 2+2 does equal 4. THAT is fact. You can't say "No it isn't, look at this." It's absolutely insane to do that. But because science does that, they say something happened, but then none of us have no real proof, it is somewhat void.
By the way, I took 11th and 12th grade sciences. It wasn't 10th.
Perhaps you should learn what a "theory" is before you use it in an argument.
From wikipedia: "In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the sun is at the center of the Solar System."
Would anyone like to debate the theory that the sun is at the center of the solar system? After all, "it is just a theory"
Need another example?
The Germ Theory of Disease is also "just a theory". Since you obviously consider it false and unproven because it is "just a theory", how do you propose diseases are spread? Ghosts or Evil Spirits?
Need another?
The Theory of Gravity
A theory is just an explanation. Whether or not something is a theory has NOTHING to do with whether or not it has been proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Slick
I'm saying don't teach evolution. And even then, you know evolution is a fact? Like you can prove it to me with solid proof? You can seriously go back and show me the evolution of a human being? I'm not talking about macro evolution, I'm talking evolution itself.
The Theory of Evolution is one of those theories that has passed the test of making predictions that came true. It has been verified by the fossil record. It has been verified by DNA sequencing. It has been observed in the wild. It has been observed in the laboratory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Slick
A human's lifetime is too short to like see any changes in evolution. I mean we can probably start recording wtf we look like now, and maybe in like 50 million years (If we're alive, I doubt it, though) we can be like "Oh.. we were ugly. SlickD was fuckin wrong."
A human's lifetime is not too short to see changes in evolution. Go look at how bacteria has changed over the last few years.
Different antibiotics? New flu shots every year?
Evolution does matter. Would you be willing to take the same antibiotics that worked 20 years ago? No, because they would be ineffective. Bacteria has evolved over time to become more resistant to medications previously effective. This is why we have science, to further understand our universe and hopefully benefit from that knowledge.
Funny side note as well. Until the Renaiisance (sp? that one always fucks me up), math as it was taught in schools wasn't bothered with 2+2=4. In many cases, 2+2 could equal 3, or 5, or four-and-a-bit, or whatever.
It was only when merchants' children started going to schools that mathematics became the concrete thing that we know today. The children, having been raised by penny-pinching fathers, were aghast at the idea that it didn't really matter what the precise answer was.
And, as things so often do, mathematics was changed to become more palatable to its consumers. Ta-da, that's why 2+2=4 all the time.
Posts: 1,572
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Argentina
06-24-2008, 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creative
Perhaps you should learn what a "theory" is before you use it in an argument.
From wikipedia: "In astronomy, heliocentrism is the theory that the sun is at the center of the Solar System."
Would anyone like to debate the theory that the sun is at the center of the solar system? After all, "it is just a theory"
Need another example?
The Germ Theory of Disease is also "just a theory". Since you obviously consider it false and unproven because it is "just a theory", how do you propose diseases are spread? Ghosts or Evil Spirits?
Need another?
The Theory of Gravity
A theory is just an explanation. Whether or not something is a theory has NOTHING to do with whether or not it has been proven.
The Theory of Evolution is one of those theories that has passed the test of making predictions that came true. It has been verified by the fossil record. It has been verified by DNA sequencing. It has been observed in the wild. It has been observed in the laboratory.
A human's lifetime is not too short to see changes in evolution. Go look at how bacteria has changed over the last few years.
Different antibiotics? New flu shots every year?
Evolution does matter. Would you be willing to take the same antibiotics that worked 20 years ago? No, because they would be ineffective. Bacteria has evolved over time to become more resistant to medications previously effective. This is why we have science, to further understand our universe and hopefully benefit from that knowledge.
I think the Bacteria example is more adaption than evolution...
(not the same)
They adapt themselves to the new antibiotics so they don't kill them, they are struggling to survive.
And for the flu vaccines, the virus modifies itself to fool the inmunologic system, so it go through our defences without notice
Well, the bacteria unable to resist the antibiotics die out, the ones that don't breed, so it's rather debatable what that actually is. If the bacteria didn't die out, then it would be a clear-cut case of adaption. As they have ridiculously high reproduction rates, though, I'm sort of inclined to call it a form of evolution.
And I believe that there are a few hundred different types of influenza virus, correct? However, last I'd heard, we were still having a hard time truly classifying viruses as "alive". Something about a checklist and viruses only doing the reproduction thing.
I think the Bacteria example is more adaption than evolution...
(not the same)
They adapt themselves to the new antibiotics so they don't kill them, they are struggling to survive.
And for the flu vaccines, the virus modifies itself to fool the inmunologic system, so it go through our defences without notice
That's what macroevolution is. Adaptation over time. Well technically, nothing (or almost nothing, except some of the smarter animals) adapts to new situations, there are simply certain organisms within a species who already have the required traits through random mutation, and they survive while the ones who don't have it die. That's exactly what happens with bacteria. Some are already immune to/strong against an antibiotic that hasn't been introduced yet, but they don't survive any better, because (duh) it hasn't been introduced yet. But once it's introduced, shazam! It survives, the rest of the species dies, and now the species has "adapted" to be resistant to that antibiotic. Evolution.
Posts: 1,164
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA, MI
IGN: MStevens24
Server: Lawolf
Guild: Illuminati
06-24-2008, 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshineko
Well, the bacteria unable to resist the antibiotics die out, the ones that don't breed, so it's rather debatable what that actually is. If the bacteria didn't die out, then it would be a clear-cut case of adaption. As they have ridiculously high reproduction rates, though, I'm sort of inclined to call it a form of evolution.
And I believe that there are a few hundred different types of influenza virus, correct? However, last I'd heard, we were still having a hard time truly classifying viruses as "alive". Something about a checklist and viruses only doing the reproduction thing.
I believe your looking for this
Movement
Reproduction and heredity
Organization
Metabolism
Homeostasis
Growth and development
Perhaps you should learn what a "theory" is before you use it in an argument.
Whether or not something is a theory has NOTHING to do with whether or not it has been proven.
The Theory of Evolution is one of those theories that has passed the test of making predictions that came true. It has been verified by the fossil record. It has been verified by DNA sequencing. It has been observed in the wild. It has been observed in the laboratory.
@ Bolded science is however always changing and while our current THEORIES seem correct now may prove to be false later on. (I;m not saying they're completely false, just that they may not be entire right either)
My biology classes seem to be floating back to me~
EVOLUTION OCCURS FAR TOO SLOW FOR ANYONE TO OBSERVE.
It takes time.
And the fossils are not a DIRECT proof, they are more of an indirect proof actually as we did not witness their evolution FIRST hand.
Also Mr. Darwin are again not DIRECT proof because he was not there to see them go through the various aspects of specialization
What you might be refering to in the laboratory is slightly different and sort of explaiend below~
Quote:
A human's lifetime is not too short to see changes in evolution. Go look at how bacteria has changed over the last few years.
Different antibiotics? New flu shots every year?
Evolution does matter. Would you be willing to take the same antibiotics that worked 20 years ago? No, because they would be ineffective. Bacteria has evolved over time to become more resistant to medications previously effective. This is why we have science, to further understand our universe and hopefully benefit from that knowledge.
I have some issue with this statement mostly because of how people seem to think evolution works.
An organism cannot change in itself by being exposed to something harmful.
AE:
Rabbit is exposed to some chemical, and becomes sick. When it has children, chances are they will also be affected by this chemical. They cannot adapt in this way.
What does happen is the following:
A group of rabbits are exposed to a harmful chemical and some die while others survive.
Then, the ones who survive survive long enough to reproduce passing on their favorable trait which allowed them to continue on living...
it's through many processes of the above that an organism becomes more specialized for various favorable conditions.
And it's not the individual organism saying, "Lawl guys lets adapt"
Posts: 87
Join Date: Jun 2008
IGN: creative
Server: Aibatt
06-30-2008, 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia
@ Bolded science is however always changing and while our current THEORIES seem correct now may prove to be false later on. (I;m not saying they're completely false, just that they may not be entire right either)
My biology classes seem to be floating back to me~
EVOLUTION OCCURS FAR TOO SLOW FOR ANYONE TO OBSERVE.
It takes time.
And the fossils are not a DIRECT proof, they are more of an indirect proof actually as we did not witness their evolution FIRST hand.
I have some issue with this statement mostly because of how people seem to think evolution works.
I could say the same about you and your interpretation of evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia
An organism cannot change in itself by being exposed to something harmful.
AE:
Rabbit is exposed to some chemical, and becomes sick. When it has children, chances are they will also be affected by this chemical. They cannot adapt in this way.
What does happen is the following:A group of rabbits are exposed to a harmful chemical and some die while others survive.
Then, the ones who survive survive long enough to reproduce passing on their favorable trait which allowed them to continue on living...
it's through many processes of the above that an organism becomes more specialized for various favorable conditions.
And it's not the individual organism saying, "Lawl guys lets adapt"
Fact: within a population of a species, there will be natural variations of traits.
Fact: some traits are better suited to an environment than others.
Fact: organisms that possess better suited traits stand a better chance at surviving in that environment.
Fact: organisms that live longer can reproduce more often.
Fact: organisms pass down their genetic material to their progeny.
Evolution: the process by which life adapts to it's environment thorugh natural selection by natural variation.
You can doubt it all you want, you can deny everything I've said so far. But I've experienced it, and I'm telling you. I don't care how many classes you've taken. Evolution might have happened. I'm not saying it's false I'm saying that there will never be solid proof, you understand? I'm saying why teach something that doesn't have proof? Math doesn't need proof of any existence. Because 2+2 does equal 4. THAT is fact. You can't say "No it isn't, look at this." It's absolutely insane to do that. But because science does that, they say something happened, but then none of us have no real proof, it is somewhat void.
mmk Dr.Slick 2+2 CAN equal 4 only because in our current math system we use a 0-9 based number system that was implemented by what the mesopetaimians * i think*
What this means is that we only use the numbers 0-9 in our system and we can create any number by combining an infinite amount of these symbols. 2+2=4 is a common example. this is off topic i suppose but it erks me to no end when people seem to take it for granted that this system has always been around. I cannot remember.... or spell the name of the civilization that used this number system but it had a base 0-3 number system.
SO NO 2+2 DID NOT ALWAYS EQUAL 4!
the symbol for the number four and the idea of a number 4 did not exist so using this base
0-3 number system 2+2=0.
Sorry bout that but i had to say this i couldnt help it.... *Math teachers give good random info sometimes....*
You can doubt it all you want, you can deny everything I've said so far. But I've experienced it, and I'm telling you. I don't care how many classes you've taken. Evolution might have happened. I'm not saying it's false I'm saying that there will never be solid proof, you understand? I'm saying why teach something that doesn't have proof? Math doesn't need proof of any existence. Because 2+2 does equal 4. THAT is fact. You can't say "No it isn't, look at this." It's absolutely insane to do that. But because science does that, they say something happened, but then none of us have no real proof, it is somewhat void.
mmk Dr.Slick 2+2 CAN equal 4 only because in our current math system we use a 0-9 based number system that was implemented by what the mesopetaimians * i think*
What this means is that we only use the numbers 0-9 in our system and we can create any number by combining an infinite amount of these symbols. 2+2=4 is a common example. this is off topic i suppose but it erks me to no end when people seem to take it for granted that this system has always been around. I cannot remember.... or spell the name of the civilization that used this number system but it had a base 0-3 number system.
SO NO 2+2 DID NOT ALWAYS EQUAL 4!
the symbol for the number four and the idea of a number 4 did not exist so using this base
0-3 number system 2+2=0.
Sorry bout that but i had to say this i couldnt help it.... *Math teachers give good random info sometimes....*
Well by your logic, I can say that 1. you are simply a really fancy robot that emulates humans perfectly, and are not actually human, 2. the sun is the center of the universe, and 3. that nothing, EVER, can be taught in schools, because by your logic, nothing can ever have solid proof.
And about your argument with 2+2 equaling 0, no. The base 10(0-9) number system, which is what we have, it doesn't go from 0 to 9 back to 0, it give from 0 to 9 to 10. So if you use a base 4(0-3) system, it would go 0, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, etc. So in a base 4 system, 2 +2=10. However, 10 would still be the mathematical equivalent of 4, it would simply be represented differently. It's as if saying it in another language, but that does not change its value at all. So yes, 2+2 definitively equals 4, unless you get into really annoying and irrelevent linear algebra and things like that.
......... You all fail to see the point.... OF COURSE IT IS FALSE!!! That is a given...
SO are 99.999999999% of all other religions (as only one can really be 100% right :P)
But you fail to see that THIS IS AMERICA, it's not ass-backwards, it's not England, France, New Zealand, or anything like that... and do you know why? Because People can teach/learn/and think anything they ******* want..... Who cares if it's wrong. If you want to learn it, and someones willing to teach it... GOOD FOR YOU! Because that is what the United States is all about....
That's great, learn anything you want, but outside of the official public education. There's freedom of speech and all that yes, but that doesn't mean we should go around teaching our kids to be idiots just to prove how much freedom we have.
Why? Why are they idiots? Just because they don't conform to what the rest of the world views as correct? I believe in Science as I my self am a Scientist. If some town in Wisconson wishes to teach all its kids Creationism then good for them they can all be pastors. The public school system is just that, public, and if a majority of a town's citizens want Creationism then they can have it. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO STEP IN. No matter how much you socialists may think it is. The constitution exists for a reason to be respected, Locke himself said the only job of a Government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens...
Last edited by rigaT0NY; 07-03-2008 at 09:32 AM.
Reason: typo
06-22-2008, 01:50 PM
Linear Mode
