The Like/Hate Thread

[Pinky]

I don't understand the complaint on the fossil record... you know how rare it is for fossilization to even occur? It often requires a natural disaster and that also usually results in gaps of time between fossils. It's not like every animal that died left a fossil for us to find, and even then we've found a very limited number of these fossils. Most animals that die are subject to scavengers and decay leaving nothing to be fossilized.

it's the only thing we have that elevates discussion of long-term evolutionary theory above pure philosophy.

[Josh]

That's how its supposed to work but there are plenty of scientists who treat 'established' theories and such as religious doctrine. Challenging conventional wisdom is seen as career suicide. The scientific community is pretty brutal in its inner politics. Its not as inflexible as Catholicism obviously, but then Religion is not in the business of flexibility.

That doesn't happen, unless you're an ID proponist. Challenging conventional wisdom is the bedrock of science, it's where the money and fame is made. The fact is that people who don't have a shit's worth of evidence cry the loudest when academia tests their theories relentlessly and nothing comes up.

Science doesn't care about the established theory, or conventional wisdom. It only cares about what you can or cannot prove.

wish i could find a link to this, but google fails me.

Because it's probably not true, or you heard it from an ID website.

not that i blame all of it. hard sciences like mathematics are straight-forward. applied sciences (engineering, chemistry, etc) are softer, but it's still results-based. evolutionary biology seems as much philosophy as anything else, and the position "im right and UR STOOPID DERPA DURR" is not helping.

All science is results based, it's not like there is a cabal of evolutionary biologists sitting around deciding that Evolution is the best way to corrupt society.

They support evolution theory because it's useful, and explains a lot of things about biochemistry, genetics, and biology. It provides predictive capabilities.

it's the only thing we have that elevates discussion of long-term evolutionary theory above pure philosophy.

Saying stuff like that makes me sad face.

[Ashe]

it's the only thing we have that elevates discussion of long-term evolutionary theory above pure philosophy.

Well yeah, that... and the looking at the dna code of every animal in taxidermy records and seeing precisely where each change took place.

This is actually why if, for some reason, someone ever actually discovered a unicorn or mermaid, the entire species record would be immediately rendered useless until it could be rebuilt, because it would be branching specific changes that occurred independently from deeper down two paths.

Also, we see evolution at work commonly with things like medicines, bacteria, and insects growing resistant over generations to things like pesticides. We even see things like microorganisms that feed on oil and have very short and quickly reproductive lifespans thriving in an environment covered in oil (say our Gulf) and thus increasing in numbers a lot (as evolution would dictate, regarding those with the traits to survive an environmental change thriving while others die out). These organisms have been around feeding off the tiny amounts of oil that leaks from natural cracks in the surface, but they really boomed in the Gulf recently.

[Pinky]

Because it's probably not true, or you heard it from an ID website.

nah, i found the thing years ago when i was still interested in this stuff. if the website that had it still exists, i can't find it because websites are growing at an explosive rate and i can't remember enough details of the groups, names, etc to put into a search engine.

All science is results based, it's not like there is a cabal of evolutionary biologists sitting around deciding that Evolution is the best way to corrupt society.

They support evolution theory because it's useful, and explains a lot of things about biochemistry, genetics, and biology. It provides predictive capabilities.

way2overreact.

Well yeah, that... and the looking at the dna code of every animal in taxidermy records and seeing precisely where each change took place.

This is actually why if, for some reason, someone ever actually discovered a unicorn or mermaid, the entire species record would be immediately rendered useless until it could be rebuilt, because it would be branching specific changes that occurred independently from deeper down two paths.

Also, we see evolution at work commonly with things like medicines, bacteria, and insects growing resistant over generations to things like pesticides. We even see things like microorganisms that feed on oil and have very short and quickly reproductive lifespans thriving in an environment covered in oil (say our Gulf) and thus increasing in numbers a lot (as evolution would dictate, regarding those with the traits to survive an environmental change thriving while others die out). These organisms have been around feeding off the tiny amounts of oil that leaks from natural cracks in the surface, but they really boomed in the Gulf recently.

but we don't have much genetic code from extinct, fossilized creatures. it's improving but it doesn't replace the need for a fossil record.

[Josh]

nah, i found the thing years ago when i was still interested in this stuff. if the website that had it still exists, i can't find it because websites are growing at an explosive rate and i can't remember enough details of the groups, names, etc to put into a search engine.

:/

way2overreact.

It's not overreacting, it's an attempt to keep science from being dumbed down or distorted by religion. Religion deals with the supernatural, so science has nothing to say about it, but in the same Vein religion needs to mind it's business about science.

Maybe god did do it, science isn't refuting that. All it's saying is that whatever happened, this is how it happened.

but we don't have much genetic code from extinct, fossilized creatures. it's improving but it doesn't replace the need for a fossil record.

I believe he's talking about currently living creatures, as in how Humans and Great Apes share a large amount of DNA, and even one of our chromosomes is a fused form of two chromosomes found in apes.

Also that all animals share some DNA in common which would make sense if we all evolved from a singular creature.

[Waffuru]

Well, what I really don't understand is how even if evolution doesn't make sense (it's not perfect) doesn't it make more sense then god 'Indian in the Cupboard'ing everything to life?

[Pinky]

:/

E|:/>

It's not overreacting, it's an attempt to keep science from being dumbed down or distorted by religion. Religion deals with the supernatural, so science has nothing to say about it, but in the same Vein religion needs to mind it's business about science.

Maybe god did do it, science isn't refuting that. All it's saying is that whatever happened, this is how it happened.

no, back in the early days the system was wide open. the term was "re-creation," a habit among evolutionary biologists of yore that has gone out of style: you take a few fossilized bones and literally make up a creature out of them. of course, unrelated embarrassing faux discoveries (piltown man, etc) caused the field to clamp down and now we have a half-baked system locked into place. currently, a very small group of charismatic personalities are making the most of it by pretending to be philosopher-kings. but, unresolved questions don't go away, eventually the pendulum will swing back and the field will be more open, though i doubt it'll ever go back to the way it was before (thankfully)

I believe he's talking about currently living creatures, as in how Humans and Great Apes share a large amount of DNA, and even one of our chromosomes is a fused form of two chromosomes found in apes.

Also that all animals share some DNA in common which would make sense if we all evolved from a singular creature.

but without a record of the actual transitional phases, you only get part of the puzzle. common genetic patterns are not proof of total naturalism.

[Waffuru]

Argument from ignorance ftw?

[Ashe]

Here's something I've never quite agreed with. "Where are the transitional forms?" Everything is a transitional form. Everything, to include human beings, have small differences from one another. You might find someone missing half a chromosome and end up with downs. Someone else might have their sex organs doubled up or something. This shows up in their genes. If, one day, a thousand years later we were all a race of downs people, "the transitional forms" would be us. The whole thing reminds me of the Futurama episode where they insist a transitional form be shown, Farnsworth shows it, they want a transition to THAT form, he shows it, they want one to THAT form, he shows it, ad nasauem until he gives up. Then they "propose a new theory" that involves riding dinosaurs (ala Discovery Institute) and Farnsworth is all "I don't want to live on this planet anymore..."

[Sigfried Hunin]

it's the only thing we have that elevates discussion of long-term evolutionary theory above pure philosophy.

I can actually say that we humans have experienced evolution, and noticed its effects, since the very birth of man.

We have domesticated animals. We have bred into these animals the traits that we LIKE. More meat, more milk, dog have been bred into a thousand different forms since their predecessors, the wolf. How different is a shiatsu from a timber wolf?

Now, this breeding is artificial, taking the traits we like and only allowing the traits we like being allowed to be passed down. The genetic traits have been hand picked by people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't illustrate my point.

Nature will, on its very lonesome, kill animals that have traits weakly adapted to their surroundings. It just happens MUCH SLOWER. Whereas, mama nature can't bend don't scoop up EVERY FISH that doesn't give live birth, but slowly groom them out by those who do not having a higher chance of dying before reproductive age. This means they have less of a chance of passing their genes down, and eventually, after many generations of the live birth being more successful, the majority of the fish will now give live birth because the other ones are too dead to breed.

I think its ridiculous that people can argue that evolution hasn't been witnessed when we force it upon creatures every fucking day on farms and dog shows.

[Saz]

Dang you guys really ran with the whole, religion thing. Once Josh started talking about ID I was out. That shit's over my head.

Back to my likes/hates...

Hate: fucking people you barely know, putting you on the spot asking you to do 'small' favours for them. Now I'm gonna be made to feel like a dick by refusing to do it. Ass.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Hehe... you said DICK and ASS.

[Ashe]

Sigfried: Well, then what you encounter is "Well well well MICROevolution is possible, but not MACROevolution! Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat???"

No, and no one has ever said that is something they would anticipate happening. Its all strawmen.

Human beings have evolved over time as well. We'll even ignore vestigial organs like the appendix (which exists to assist in the digestation of grass, a function no longer being served and thus making it useless and nothing more than a ticking bomb we all carry) and I'll point out people who are "lactose intolerant". This is actually the default state we were in at one point. People who are able to drink milk after the age where you are typically weened off of it are passing down a genetic mutation that happened. People had no reason to be able to digest milk beyond their infantile years (like most animals) because they had no way to access it after their mothers weened them off and finished producing it. In the years of the human race learning to settle down and farm we began finding uses for it (for everything from making cheese to drinking or giving to our young). This forced our bodies to adapt over time whereas those without this trait will suffer fierce diarrhea and be unable to properly digest it.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2..._milk.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6397001.stm

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/how_we_evolve/

[Jarka]

Hate: Blisters on the back of my heel. I have work tonight, which means they're going to tear open.

Love: That it smells like autumn outside.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Hey Jarka, if you have a chance, go to WalMart and see if they have a product called "Moleskin". If they don't have it, check at a drug store or something. It's basically a sorta fabric-y material that adheres to your skin and prevents any additional damage to the blisters, and it's great at preventing blisters in the first place. Keeps friction down.

[Jarka]

Hate: The nearest Wal*Mart is 20 minutes away. No moleskin for me.

I'll just vag up and pop it beforehand.

[Dehan]

hate having to go grocery shopping

like that south park will keep me entertained tonight

[Sigfried Hunin]

Hate: The nearest Wal*Mart is 20 minutes away. No moleskin for me.

I'll just vag up and pop it beforehand.

OH GOD NO DON'T POP ITTTTT

And now that you have, put some duct tape or similar heavy duty material over it.

[Victoria]

I hate that my brother rolled over my cat's tail with his computer chair, and now my cat's tail has to be amputated. I seriously don't have $700.00.

Whenever things are going well and looking up something like this happens. I got no sleep because I was so worried about my cat.

[Super Buu]

=( That's horrible.