"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky · 23-01-2013 05:08PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, no, evolution wasn't just assumed to have occurred. It has survived the crucible of scientific rigour. 150 years of experimentation, peer-review and a mountain of evidence like you wouldn't believe has given evolution credibility not because it's easier to assume that it's correct because it isn't.

Non-scientists so rarely understand this. We haven't spent the last 150 years proving evolution. We've spent the last 150 years trying our best to disprove it. And failing. It's one of the sturdiest theories humanity has ever come up with. The best minds of each generation have tried to tear it apart, and they can't f*cking dent it.

endacl · 23-01-2013 05:08PM

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, I know it's technically inaccurate, but it feels appropriate.

May be technically inaccurate.

There's your hypothesis. Now experiment, test, and review results.

That would be a scientific method. Might even result in a theory.

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:11PM

endacl wrote: »

I'm not a 'Darwinist'. I just accept it as the best explanation I've come across thus far. The mechanism makes sense, and is demonstrable. (Don't ask for examples.There's a thread full of that.)

I'm open to a better explanation. If you have one, fire away.

^^
This. + 1.

Sarky · 23-01-2013 05:11PM

Technically inaccurate, depending on whether "fittest" means what you think it means, then.

J C used to equate it with Nazism. But, eh, he was a couple of basepairs short of a chromosome...

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:12PM

Beruthiel wrote: »

We should do that asap!

We shall soon be reaching the 10k user comments cut off point.
You know what that means.....

Someone will have to come up with a pithy title for part deux?

Sarky · 23-01-2013 05:14PM

Can't go wrong with Electric Boogaloo.

mickrock · 23-01-2013 05:15PM

Sarky wrote: »

We've spent the last 150 years trying our best to disprove it. And failing. It's one of the sturdiest theories humanity has ever come up with. The best minds of each generation have tried to tear it apart, and they can't f*cking dent it.

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:16PM

Sarky wrote: »

Can't go wrong with Electric Boogaloo.

Evolution Boogaloo?

:pac:

Sarky · 23-01-2013 05:17PM

mickrock wrote: »

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

That's not very nice. There's no need to be rude just because you don't understand evolutionary biology.

Sarky · 23-01-2013 05:17PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Evolution Boogaloo?

:pac:

Dance Dance Evolution?

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:20PM

mickrock wrote: »

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Have you?

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:23PM

Sarky wrote: »

Dance Dance Evolution?

In before the Creationists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XiyGZTvC9I

dlofnep · 23-01-2013 05:26PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The point of dlofnep's questions (IMO) is that not only can you not show why the evolutionary explanation is wrong, neither can you offer any alternative explanation of these observations in a way which fits the available evidence.

Correct.

mickrock · 23-01-2013 05:42PM

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

dlofnep · 23-01-2013 05:53PM

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

endacl · 23-01-2013 05:55PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

^^
Beaten to it.

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 05:56PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

My 6 year old granddaughter will be very insulted by that statement.

doctoremma · 23-01-2013 05:58PM

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

I got as far as "Gaps in the fossil record are evidence against evolution".

doctoremma · 23-01-2013 05:59PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 6 year old granddaughter will be very insulted by that statement.

I'm pretty sure your 6 year old granddaughter could have a pop at what a coccyx used to be as well.

Zombrex · 23-01-2013 06:01PM

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

*ahem*

mickrock wrote: »

I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

Zombrex wrote: »

You stated that evolution takes place.

Please explain the non-Darwinian process by which biological evolution takes place, including (if you have it to hand) the evidence supporting this process.

Please explain how "evolution" happens in a non-Darwinian fashion.

endacl · 23-01-2013 06:01PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm pretty sure your 6 year old granddaughter could have a pop at what a coccyx used to be as well.

I'm still wondering where cocs 1-5 went...?

And what were they for?!?

doctoremma · 23-01-2013 06:02PM

endacl wrote: »

I'm still wondering where cocs 1-5 went...?

And what were they for?!?

It's gap in the vertebral records. Therefore, your coccyx doesn't exist.

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 06:03PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm pretty sure your 6 year old granddaughter could have a pop at what a coccyx used to be as well.

I shall ask her on Friday. Although I have heard her refer to falling down and hurting her 'tail bone' so I reckon she already has a pretty good idea but may be unfamiliar with the word 'coccyx' - she's gonna love that word.

doctoremma · 23-01-2013 06:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I shall ask her on Friday. Although I have heard her refer to falling down and hurting her 'tail bone' so I reckon she already has a pretty good idea but may be unfamiliar with the word 'coccyx' - she's gonna love that word.

Yeah, I figured you might have to simplify "coccyx".

endacl · 23-01-2013 06:04PM

doctoremma wrote: »

It's gap in the vertebral records. Therefore, your coccyx doesn't exist.

Quick! Record that statement and upload it to Utoob. We can start a whole new debate!

Bannasidhe · 23-01-2013 06:08PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Yeah, I figured you might have to simplify "coccyx".

Don't think so - going by past experience I'll just have to tell her what it means, provide a visual aid to show exactly where it is, wait a few minutes and she will correctly use it in a sentence.

We never swear around her now - not since the C**t incident when she was 14 months old...:o

robindch · 23-01-2013 06:12PM

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

Mickrock -- I've asked you twice to justify the claim you made earlier today or withdraw it.

You will be carded for soapboaxing if your next post in this thread doesn't do either.

swampgas · 23-01-2013 06:20PM

Quoth oldrnwisr about mickrock:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You seem to be unwilling or incapable to acknowledge this fact, however, since you have made no attempt to point out any flaws in any of the evidence presented. You just keep repeating the same soundbite over and over as if, somehow, people will eventually just accept it.

I suspect this is how people like mickrock convince themselves. They repeat the same thing to themselves again and again to drown out any gnawing doubts.

Perhaps this is like reciting prayers or chanting mantras?

mickrock · 23-01-2013 06:22PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

If Darwinism is true why don't we see a lot of living transitional forms between the species? We would expect these intermediate forms to be plentiful if the theory is correct.

They can't all have died out.

doctoremma · 23-01-2013 06:26PM

mickrock wrote: »

If Darwinism is true why don't we see a lot of living transitional forms between the species? We would expect these intermediate forms to be plentiful if the theory is correct.

They can't all have died out.

May I suggest you Google "ring species"?

Although I'm not sure your second assertion has much basis, in a general sense. One of the key reasons a species changes is because there has been a selective pressure operating on a genetic change to force the predominance of the new variant over the old, within a population. The old variant is less fit under the new selective pressure and will therefore die out pretty sharpish.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments