Darwin's theory

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 12:06AM

catallus wrote: »

Self-criticism is one of the biggest themes in any organised religion.

You and I both know that this is a bare faced lie. But, then again, you're a poster who calls himself after one of the most well known traitorous conspiricists ever (and couldn't even be arsed to get his name spelled right), so what's a giant stinking porky to you anyway?

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 12:16AM

El Guapo! wrote: »

Thought?
As in...'don't know for sure'?
As in...'guesswork'?
As in....totally made up?

JC got his scientician degree in the University of What Some Bloke in the Pub Told Me, a highly prestigious institution for sciencirific learning. He then went on and got his Masters in Argumentum ex Culo out of the PIDOOMA Institute of Technology, so he's one of the world's leading expert in the science created by the Creationist's Nightmare, of making **** up on the spot and running when called on it. It is a great new field in creationism studies, allowing for massive strides in their work.

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 12:40AM

endacl wrote: »

Guys. I read on a website that the Earth is flat. Any thoughts? I'm kind of in the fence meself.

De Chelonian Mobile, Endacl, De Chelonian Mobile.

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 01:22AM

Skylinehead wrote: »

Isn't Hades Greek mythology?

Yep, it's where the christians picked up the concept of hell from. Judaism had no such concept at the time christianity got going, so they borrowed from their most numerous converts in the early days (the early days of chrisitianity being at about 100CE), former polytheistic Greeks.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-10-2014 07:52AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Great explanation.

So if I have it correct :

Most of your list is pretty ok, with some pedantic subtleties I could correct you on but it is not worth your time, or mine. But the last two about homosexuality are way off. There is no reason to see it as a "disorder" than I can think of.

There are numerous "sound explanations" of it too, the trick is to verify if one of them is correct.

For me I do not think there is any great mystery. If one simply admits that sexual attraction has a genetic element to it, then the case is already closed.

Why? Well because every single person on this planet already contains ALL the genes for being the other sex. There is not one genome for men and one for women. We each of us contain both. Right down to the genes for all the hormones and genitals and everything for the other sex.

Which of those genes is expressed (turned on) relies on different factors depending on the genes. Some are turned on and off by the XX and XY chromosome that determines sex. Others are simply turned on by the presence of certain hormones and other environmental factors. Many are BOTH.

So all one has to do to invoke an explanation for homosexuality is to simply point out you already HAVE the genes for homosexuality. The difference between a homosexual and heterosexual is that different genes that they BOTH have are expressed in each of them.

No mystery really at all.

As for no good theories explaining to be "beneficial" I would point out two things:

1) No one says a trait has to be beneficial to survive selection and be perpetuated throughout generations.
2) Many species DO have non reproducing individuals in them, with some species even having a vast majority who do not, and they are not weakened but strengthened by these elements. So do not write homosexuality off as being non-beneficial TOO easily.

J C · 16-10-2014 07:52AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Just not on the timescale? So more like man was created 150000 to 200000 years ago ?

150,000 Evolutionist 'years' allright.:)
The problem is that the regression equations are out by a factor of about 25.
... it happens ... Sheldon Cooper was off by a factor of 10,000!!!

This 'Sheldon Cooper Moment' is coming to an Evolutionist near you!!!:D

He ends with the interesting observation that "now I'm worse than a fraud ... I'm practically a Biologist"!!!:eek:

Pherekydes · 16-10-2014 08:08AM

J C wrote: »

... it happens Sheldon Cooper who was off by a factor of 10,000!!!

A guy in a sitcom on the telly got a calculation wrong and this proves huh?

Is this the level of infantile argument you have slipped to?

The real reason you've been arguing this stuff for 9 years is because you keeping failing Sophistry 101 in law school.

tigger123 · 16-10-2014 08:19AM

That there's 92 pages arguing whether evolution is true or not is kinda depressing, but ultimately a warning in some ways.

There's an amazing book called 'Why Evolution is True' which sets out the argument in very simple, easy to understand terms. The idea behind which is to prepare you for the likes of JC (if ya meet them in real life). If you enjoy popular science at all I'd highly recommend it.

floggg · 16-10-2014 09:29AM

J C wrote: »

No ... the question is how 'the fittest' arrived i.e. came to be, in the first place.
NS is quite good at selecting out 'un-fit' organisms that result from mutations and other injuries ... but it doesn't explain how the perfect or almost perfect organisms we observe came to be.

It is Human Nature to want to win arguments. This tendency occurs across all disciplines.
Lawyers have a 'nose' for the truth ... and they are trained to follow lines of questioning that establish the truth.

As a lawyer, can I just saw we very much aren't.

We are trained to know the law and legal procedure, and how to use that for the benefit of our clients.

A large part of our job involves putting forth arguments we don't necessarily belive in ourselves.

Efit: just to clarify, I'm not saying we are the lying conniving con men we are made out to be.

But our job is to represent our clients interests not our own, so sometimes that will mean putting forward a somewhat shaky position or argument in the best way we can in the hopes of getting a result for them.

We don't outright lie (at least we shouldn't), but we are often required to try and interpret the facts in a way which suits a narrative, rather than searching for an objective truth.

Wibbs · 16-10-2014 09:56AM

J C wrote: »

... you can hang onto that, if you want ... the evidence is clear that we are all descended from one man and one man only.
... of course, we are descended from many other different men down our family trees ... just like your father and my father were different people ... but none of these was Adam ... and nobody is arguing that they were.

Christ *heads desk*. How can anyone be so ill informed. TBH when Mitochondrial "Eve" was first described it galled me that they decided the discovery of this person(rather a group of women) was to be dumbed down for the cheap seats and named "Eve". I just knew the dribblers and the fcuktards would be out in force shouting "see the Bible was right".

This "eve" is simply the most recent common ancestor of living humans today. She(rather they) wasn't the first human woman, nor was she taken from some guys rib. She had a mother and a grandmother and so on going back thousands of generations. There were other women around her at the time and their mitochondrial lines continued for a time, but then died out.

That can happen quite easily and indeed has happened historically. Look to our nearest neighbour the UK. There was an invasion and colonisation by Saxons over a thousand years ago. We know this for a fact. Today? A tiny proportion of English men can trace Saxon DNA in their lines. Of English women? None. Zip. Nada. The Saxon female lines have entirely disappeared. If one was to apply biblical "logic" to this particular event they could claim Saxon women never existed.

On "Adam"(gah!), same thing occurred. "Him", rather his male lines, are the most recent common ancestor of human male lines of today. The today part is important. As I have pointed out Mungo man found in Australia, a guy from around 40,000 years ago after this so called "Adam" and "Eve" had a different set of lines. How's that work then? Neandertals have a very different matrilineal and patrilineal setup. Like I've said how many Adams and Eves did this god of yours create?

Thargor · 16-10-2014 10:28AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ *heads desk*. How can anyone be so ill informed. TBH when Mitochondrial "Eve" was first described it galled me that they decided the discovery of this person(rather a group of women) was to be dumbed down for the cheap seats and named "Eve". I just knew the dribblers and the fcuktards would be out in force shouting "see the Bible was right".

This "eve" is simply the most recent common ancestor of living humans today. She(rather they) wasn't the first human woman, nor was she taken from some guys rib. She had a mother and a grandmother and so on going back thousands of generations. There were other women around her at the time and their mitochondrial lines continued for a time, but then died out.

That can happen quite easily and indeed has happened historically. Look to our nearest neighbour the UK. There was an invasion and colonisation by Saxons over a thousand years ago. We know this for a fact. Today? A tiny proportion of English men can trace Saxon DNA in their lines. Of English women? None. Zip. Nada. The Saxon female lines have entirely disappeared. If one was to apply biblical "logic" to this particular event they could claim Saxon women never existed.

On "Adam"(gah!), same thing occurred. "Him", rather his male lines, are the most recent common ancestor of human male lines of today. The today part is important. As I have pointed out Mungo man found in Australia, a guy from around 40,000 years ago after this so called "Adam" and "Eve" had a different set of lines. How's that work then? Neandertals have a very different matrilineal and patrilineal setup. Like I've said how many Adams and Eves did this god of yours create?

I read his posts a couple of times to see if that was what he was actually arguing, there isn't a single straight piece of information in any of his posts, everything has to be twisted in some way, there's no way someone is accidentally that oblivious, he has to be a long term troll.

osarusan · 16-10-2014 10:32AM

I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.

The Corinthian · 16-10-2014 10:50AM

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

And they in turn were descended from lower primates, something that the Bible was not correct on - or at least omitted.

Indeed, it seems a bit bizarre that you feel that because we may have all ultimately have a common ancestor or two (Mitochondrial Eve's parents were also common ancestors of ours, btw), that you conclude that the Bible was somehow correct - and AFAIK, evolution also accepted the common ancestor hypothesis or at least did not rule this out. How this proves that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, or the whole garden of Eden myth is a bit beyond me.

Naturally, the Bible will get some things 'right' - even a broken clock is right twice a day. But to jump from the Bible being correct on one thing to the Bible simply being 'correct', is terribly broken logic, I'm afraid.

Wibbs wrote: »

This "eve" is simply the most recent common ancestor of living humans today. She(rather they) wasn't the first human woman, nor was she taken from some guys rib.

You know, had God taken one or two more ribs out, he could have saved himself the trouble of creating Eve in the first place...

floggg · 16-10-2014 11:34AM

osarusan wrote: »

I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.

I will say though the scientific arguments are a really fascinating read for the rest of us. Some really well informed posters here, who clearly know their fields very well.

Really making me regret not pursuing some sort of career in biology or zoology.

Knasher · 16-10-2014 12:23PM

tigger123 wrote: »

That there's 92 pages arguing whether evolution is true or not is kinda depressing, but ultimately a warning in some ways.

If only you knew. JC has being pretty much keeping a thread on the go single handedly in A+A, which is now at 127 pages, and another in Christianity at 286 pages, and both of these threads were created because the previous ones exceeded the maximum post count for a thread.

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 01:11PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Now here's the thing, they proposed theories that differed from the conventional. Because in science you can do that.

And yet all creationists tote the party line.

Again I don't think you understand what science is.

If Rosalind Franklin hadn't shared her research to Watson and Crick then you may never have heard of them.

Hoyle was big into panspersia so no creator, no 6,000 year old earth , and most definitely earth isn't special. Also while some of his early work was inspired , carbon cycle in stars and stuff, not so much attention was paid to the later stuff.

Also if life didn't originate on earth you are back to a chicken and egg scenario. Except we have finite age for heavy elements so even his theories say that life evolved.

Oh, and saying Crick was an early proponent of creatardism is a big fat lie, along the same lines (but not quite the same magnitude) as holocaust denial. Crick for all his faults never said anything that without some deep quote mining could possibly be construed as support for, or indicating a scientific basis for said creatardism.

Though I will give the creatards one thing. In one sense they are more consistent and more perceptive than their science accepting fellow religionists. At least they know, somehow despite the deep well of Neanderthal stupid they constantly drink from, that by rejecting such a major part of the bible as the creation myth (and calling it allegorical is rejecting it, because the writers meant it to be taken literally) you must logically reject the rest of the old testament, and therefore the "life" of Jebus (if he even existed, it is almost certain that if there were a historical Jesus he has little to no place in the gospels or new testament) is built on a pack of lies and therefore worthless.

yellowlabrador · 16-10-2014 01:11PM

the evolutionary adam and eves didn t live at the same time or in the same place,so there goes the garden of eden....

MrPudding · 16-10-2014 01:43PM

endacl wrote: »

OK. That's enough. I'll leave it to the more patient posters on the 'actually know what they're talking about team'. Best of luck to you with the Ingenue and the Eel.

I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered. They're taking the pi55.

Holybabyjebus! Nearly ten years of stubborn, wilful stupidity, Really? Can evolution run in reverse? Please tell me he hasn't bred....

He alleges that he has bred, with his allegedly very hot wife. Have a search on the A&A board, he has some kind of creepy sexual innuendo posts there.

floggg wrote: »

We don't outright lie (at least we shouldn't), but we are often required to try and interpret the facts in a way which suits a narrative, rather than searching for an objective truth.

Apart from the bit I have struck out, you make lawyers sound a lot like creatards.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-10-2014 01:47PM

yellowlabrador wrote: »

the evolutionary adam and eves didn t live at the same time or in the same place,so there goes the garden of eden....

Worse than that.... who the evolutionary eve(s) were actually mathematically changes every time new women are born. The title of who it was or were does not stay stationary in the mathematics. It varies with time.

It seems that when describing these things however the scientists, as they often do, used some poetic license and reached into local culture (in this case local montheism) and pulled out some useful terms.

And as you have seen, creationists act like this proves something about the Garden of Eden fairy tale.

Similar happened when the Higgs Boson was titled "the God particle". At some point scientists will realize that using religious language under artistic license, causes more harm than good. It either confuses.... or is willfully misunderstood with intent.

floggg · 16-10-2014 01:50PM

MrPudding wrote: »

He alleges that he has bred, with his allegedly very hot wife. Have a search on the A&A board, he has some kind of creepy sexual innuendo posts there.

Apart from the bit I have struck out, you make lawyers sound a lot like creatards.

MrP

If you looked at the context, they was tge point.

A law professor isn't a good authority on advanced biology and evolution - what he is though is skilled at editing and presenting facts in a way which supports whatever argument he is asked to advance.

The Corinthian · 16-10-2014 02:54PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, and saying Crick was an early proponent of creatardism is a big fat lie, along the same lines (but not quite the same magnitude) as holocaust denial.

LOL. Quote of the thread.

Is it just me, but do both sides in this debate sound just as crazy and filled with 'religious' fervour as each other after a while? Do not do battle with monsters, etc, I suppose...

yellowlabrador wrote: »

the evolutionary adam and eves didn t live at the same time or in the same place,so there goes the garden of eden....

So the garden of Eden was before they lived together? In fairness that does make sense.

MrPudding · 16-10-2014 02:56PM

floggg wrote: »

If you looked at the context, they was tge point.

A law professor isn't a good authority on advanced biology and evolution - what he is though is skilled at editing and presenting facts in a way which supports whatever argument he is asked to advance.

I knew that was what you meant (I am studying law myself), I just wanted to say creatards. Sorry.

MrP

Brian Shanahan · 16-10-2014 03:08PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But why does the earthworm compost?

:pac:

Took me tree dace to read the thread, but I've your answer for you James, and it goes something like this:

"om, nom, nom, nom. There's good eatin' in dem dere clumps of hummus. Oh hold up a minute, gotta poop out all dat clay."

floggg · 16-10-2014 03:19PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Took me tree dace to read the thread, but I've your answer for you James, and it goes something like this:

"om, nom, nom, nom. There's good eatin' in dem dere clumps of hummus. Oh hold up a minute, gotta poop out all dat clay."

In fairness, Aldi do a lovely lime and coriander hummus. Great with some sliced carrots or some posh crackers.

gladrags · 16-10-2014 03:51PM

It appears that empirical evidence,and sustainable biological research has no bearing on religous theory.

Microbes preceded other species,and probably will outlast same,given adaptability.

Crick an Watson's character assasination is beyond words.Their recent (1953) discovery,which applies to all living organisms,which identifies the biological link,cannot be approached or explained away by religous theory.

To suggest that DNA,RNA can be explained away, in the context of a single species of animal,is narrow minded.

It is merely passed on by humans,and was,prior to the arrival of humans.

Philo Beddoe · 16-10-2014 04:11PM

osarusan wrote: »

I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.

Arguing with posters who clearly will never be swayed by evidence can be frustrating and seem pointless. What we have to remember is that there are always other people reading who may have been convinced by the BS unless someone was there with a rational counter-argument.

iDave · 16-10-2014 04:26PM

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

Philo Beddoe · 16-10-2014 04:34PM

iDave wrote: »

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

No, all humans are descended from her.

Wibbs · 16-10-2014 05:19PM

All modern humans alive today that we know about are descended from her line. In the past other humans that came after that line kicked off came from a different one, but those lines died out. I added the "that we know about" part as there may still be people out there who have a slightly different ancestry. They just haven't had their genetics profiled yet. EG with the Y chromosome "Adam" they had an age for him and his kind mapped out, until an African American dudes DNA was found to be slightly different. Then a bunch of lads in Cameroon had the same different line, so they had to go further back for the last common ancestor of the currently surviving male lines. Out of the billions of people on this planet we just don't have a big enough sample size. Yet.

This stuff is complex. EG Mungo man who I mentioned earlier. A fully modern human, the earliest known from Australia at 40 odd 1000 years old(may even be earlier). His "Eve" line is different than ours today. He's not even related to living native Australians. More he looks more "modern" in features than some later native Australians.

Edgarfrndly · 16-10-2014 06:06PM

iDave wrote: »

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

Mitochondrial Eve is the last common female ancestor between all living humans.

Darwin's theory

Comments