Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Religion


  • Please log in to reply
2250 replies to this topic

#2001
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Myth @ Apr 6 2010, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
fair enough. then explain what the difference between intelligent design and creationism is to me.

intelligent design is exactly what it means. Given an omnipotent being, he can see the exact results of any of his actions through the entirety of time. He only needs to act once at the beginning to get an end that he likes. That's intelligent design, which is what I generally believe in.
QUOTE
being another 'possibility' doesnt automatically make it scientific. ID or creationism is by definition, not a scientific theory. people need to get this through their heads.

it is not by definition not scientific. What if it's what actually happened? Being scientific is more about the road you take than the end you reach. Regardless, people are losing job over not believing evolution is right. Not that intelligent design is necessarily the answer. They are losing jobs purely over being open to other possibilities.
QUOTE
Denying them the right to marriage is discrimination.

saying a black person can't park in a no parking space is not discrimination. The definition of marriage for most christians is between a man and a woman. A homosexual is more than able to enter into marriage, just not with someone of the same sex. That is not discrimination.

QUOTE
How so?

US slavery was suitable because it was thought that african's were less evolutionary evolved than people of european descent. I think I am correct in that hitler had a similar reason for justifying the holocaust. In that he felt Aryans were the purest race scientifically and removing the less pure races to keep their race as pure as possible. How is that not a biological justification?
QUOTE
Because these other possibilities are nearly also ID which is pseudo science. I'm yet to hear of an actual scientific alternative.

Lamarckism is one that I've read about.
QUOTE
There comes a point when the scientific community can pretty much state that a theory is definitely correct. Evolution has reached that point.

There was a point when we thought newton was right with such fervor. Then Einstein came along, and even now people think that there are some miscalculations in his newer more accurate model. Specifically regarding dark matter. If only biologists were as accepting as astronomers.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2002
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
Way2lazy, you gotta cover your bases more, man. Evolution is another debate, don't let yourself be brought into it here.

Edited by Pawnator, 06 April 2010 - 11:32 PM.


#2003
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Apr 6 2010, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Way2lazy, you gotta cover your bases more, man.

what do you mean?
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2004
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 6 2010, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
what do you mean?


Well myth will just counter-argue that Lamarckianism is considered pseudoscience now just like ID.

Then you'll say that nonetheless, Lamarckianism was considered valid science at the time.

Then Myth will just say that science is about testing new theories and that religion doesn't do that.

Then you'll say that the period defense of Lamarckianism against competing theories demonstrates that scientific bias isolates ideas from the scientific community that later end up being correct.

Then Myth will say that the situations aren't comparable because Evolution is based on observable phenomena.

Then you'll say...

....

and eventually the thread will return to a discussion of religion and Myth will move on to point #2.

A few pages ago, Rob got away with the erroneous notion that the Ascension and the Resurrection were simultaneous!

Edited by Pawnator, 06 April 2010 - 11:39 PM.


#2005
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Apr 6 2010, 11:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A few pages ago, Rob got away with the erroneous notion that the Ascension and the Resurrection were simultaneous!

While I agree, I am not that vested in the arguments being made. I am bored more than anything when I post in this thread.

I just feel like pointing out when people who argue for science over religion won't put enough research into a religion to get some of the most basic and core concepts of religions being argued against occasionally.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2006
Riddle

Riddle
  • Members
  • 622 posts
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 07:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
US slavery was suitable because it was thought that african's were less evolutionary evolved than people of european descent. I think I am correct in that hitler had a similar reason for justifying the holocaust. In that he felt Aryans were the purest race scientifically and removing the less pure races to keep their race as pure as possible. How is that not a biological justification?


Because this is not true. Evolution doesnt work like that, diversity isnt based upon traits you find favourable. Where in the world of biology does it state that a race is inferior or superior to another based upon skin color or even descent? Kindly point it out to us.

It is typical for religious people to try to blame Hitler and US slavery upon science. It wasnt science fault to produce mis-guide, mis-educated people like Hitler. His beliefs had nothing to do with science and more to do with his fanatical mind, which had no scientific evidence to back up his claim.

And ID is creationism in this sake of argument. Giving an intepretation of what ID is for you doesnt change what we are debating about.

A simple question you probably get asked all the time. If ID works, then who created the creator?
The answer you'd probably give is to exclude the creator from the equation of creation. Suddenly, all the rules of creation does not apply to God.

QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
While I agree, I am not that vested in the arguments being made. I am bored more than anything when I post in this thread.

I just feel like pointing out when people who argue for science over religion won't put enough research into a religion to get some of the most basic and core concepts of religions being argued against occasionally.



If it were up to me to make up the decision of who is winning the debate right now. I would easily give it to those who argue against the need for religion.

QUOTE (Thug Aim @ Apr 6 2010, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe what makes sense to me. If you believe in evolution who's not to say our diverse races evolved from the original humans Adam and Eve. Also consider that fact that I am in no way sure of anything. While I don't think the universe was created solely for us (humans), I definitely believe in god, and a majority of the Bible.


Well, that doesnt make sense to me. Diversity comes from mixing of all kinds of genes. It is no wonder why mixed race children look beautiful or crossbreeding of dogs produces a whole new looking dog with desirable traits. Adam and Eve were two modern day human beings (fully developed humans). If our entire human race came from these ancestors, we would be doomed. Why do you think you dont mate with people within your family? It's because you share the same genes and therefore diversity is diminished. Also, the chances of producing a baby with down syndrome increases tenthfold.

QUOTE
I think our problem here is I don't know the correct name for my beleifs and I just vall myself methodist christian because that's how I've been raised. That's kind of living proof against what you said about raising children. Kids have minds of their own man (most of them). We do what we want.

No, that's living proof for what I said. You have been doctrined into your parents religion without the chance to explore the possibilities that there may not be a god. It is obvious to me that you have not done any exploration and believe whole-heartedly in the bible. That being said, you are taking the right steps in finding out things for yourself. Kids do not have a mind of their own. They wouldnt be so easily manipulated if they did.

Edited by Riddle, 07 April 2010 - 12:46 AM.


#2007
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Riddle @ Apr 7 2010, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because this is not true. Evolution doesnt work like that, diversity isnt based upon traits you find favourable. Where in the world of biology does it state that a race is inferior or superior to another based upon skin color or even descent? Kindly point it out to us.

It is typical for religious people to try to blame Hitler and US slavery upon science. It wasnt science fault to produce mis-guide, mis-educated people like Hitler. His beliefs had nothing to do with science and more to do with his fanatical mind, which had no scientific evidence to back up his claim.

and how is it religions fault to produce mis-guided people like those in the crusades and inquisitions?

Is it purely because religion is held to a different standard in your mind?

QUOTE
Well, that doesnt make sense to me. Diversity comes from mixing of all kinds of genes. It is no wonder why mixed race children look beautiful or crossbreeding of dogs produces a whole new looking dog with desirable traits. Adam and Eve were two modern day human beings (fully developed humans). If our entire human race came from these ancestors, we would be doomed. Why do you think you dont mate with people within your family? It's because you share the same genes and therefore diversity is diminished. Also, the chances of producing a baby with down syndrome increases tenthfold.

Like I said earlier, evolution would state that there was a first homo sapien sapien. likewise there would be a second in close proximity to the first. there wasn't just some random coincidence that suddenly spurted homo sapien sapiens to pop up all around the world and somehow possess the same genome with different location common traits that make up the different races.

Now you've shown you don't even fully understand the science you are arguing for as well as the religions you are arguing against. Congratulations a catholic understands evolution more than you do.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2008
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
evolution would state that there was a first homo sapien

Err, no it wouldn't. Individuals do not evolve; groups do. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a group. A species in this context is a group that cannot successfully reproduce with other groups. This happens gradually, so there is no specific moment when a particular member of the group goes from Species A to Species B.

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 02:34 AM.


#2009
Myth

Myth
  • Members
  • 4,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
intelligent design is exactly what it means. Given an omnipotent being, he can see the exact results of any of his actions through the entirety of time. He only needs to act once at the beginning to get an end that he likes. That's intelligent design, which is what I generally believe in.

it is not by definition not scientific. What if it's what actually happened? Being scientific is more about the road you take than the end you reach. Regardless, people are losing job over not believing evolution is right. Not that intelligent design is necessarily the answer. They are losing jobs purely over being open to other possibilities.


so you're telling me the definition of ID is identical to creationism, apart from the fact that creationism replaces 'omnipotent being' with an abrahamic god. that doesnt make my definition of ID much different from yours.

people are not losing jobs over not believing in evolution. I donno, maybe where you live. ive heard of uni students leaving lectures because they didnt want to learn about evolution but ive never heard of people getting fired for believing ID over evolution. the thing is, religious people are trying to write off ID as science. this is the only thing we are against. its not science. its a belief. Ancient koreans believed that humans originated from a bear who was promised by a god-like figure that he would turn the bear into a human if it only ate garlic for 100 days in a cave. it did, and was transformed into a beautiful woman. upon seeing the woman, the god-like figure fell in love, got married and had children who were the ancestors of all koreans. is this a scientific theory? no, its a belief. there are still very few old-fashioned shamanistic koreans in korea who believe this though. you can reject evolution and believe in ID, but that doesnt make ID a scientific theory, like evolution.

we dont care if people believe in creationism. we dont care if they believe that aliens came to earth and created us. thats fine, what ever you want to believe. its when religious people come to us and tell us that their belief system, (like ID) is a plausable alternative scientific theory- THAT is when we sneer and dismiss them as unintelligent. rightfully so i might add. I'm against ID when they speak of putting it in biology text books (though fortunately these sorts of things dont happen where i live). most people are not against the belief itself. we dont care if its taught in religious educations or churches or sunday schools. it just doesnt belong in science text books.

QUOTE (Pawnator @ Apr 7 2010, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well myth will just counter-argue that Lamarckianism is considered pseudoscience now just like ID.

Then you'll say that nonetheless, Lamarckianism was considered valid science at the time.

Then Myth will just say that science is about testing new theories and that religion doesn't do that.

Then you'll say that the period defense of Lamarckianism against competing theories demonstrates that scientific bias isolates ideas from the scientific community that later end up being correct.

Then Myth will say that the situations aren't comparable because Evolution is based on observable phenomena.

Then you'll say...

...


nahhhh not going down that road

#2010
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
Evolution as a scientific theory is wonderful because it's observable, testable, and we have the ability to make predictions based on it. When you throw a deity into the mix you are not contributing to this in any way. You are complicating things, and science strives to be as simple as possible.

There may indeed be a god simply because we don't know for certain that there isn't one. But entertaining this idea is entirely useless to scientists because if there were a god we would have no way to test this, and it's predictive power is basically zero. It's sort of like adding "but maybe we are all actually in the Matrix" at the end of every single scientific hypothesis. It may be true, but it's kind of pointless to speculate about it.

Also, I'm not sure there are any examples of someone losing a job entirely because they were "open to other possibilities", but for certain positions this would make sense. For example, I'm not sure I would want a Surgeon General who was open to the idea that germ theory is incorrect.

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 01:57 AM.


#2011
Rob`

Rob`
  • Members
  • 1,357 posts
  • xfire:noobnoobnoob1337
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somerset, England
It would be nice if people would try using some reading comprehension before putting errors into my mouth.



Perhaps if this signature is witty enough, someone will finally love me.


#2012
Riddle

Riddle
  • Members
  • 622 posts
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and how is it religions fault to produce mis-guided people like those in the crusades and inquisitions?

Is it purely because religion is held to a different standard in your mind?

Because we dont see scientists preaching for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on a country..

The crusades and inquisitions were caused by religious priest yelling "gods words" into the ears of eager men. How can you not see the difference here I do not know.


QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Like I said earlier, evolution would state that there was a first homo sapien sapien. likewise there would be a second in close proximity to the first. there wasn't just some random coincidence that suddenly spurted homo sapien sapiens to pop up all around the world and somehow possess the same genome with different location common traits that make up the different races.

Now you've shown you don't even fully understand the science you are arguing for as well as the religions you are arguing against. Congratulations a catholic understands evolution more than you do.

No, you dont understand evolution more than I do. Infact you dont understand it at all.

Let me get this straight, you are saying homo sapiens sapiens, which I think you refer to as modern humans have a close relative but different from the modern humans. In which case is Correct.
Are you putting words in my mouth for the second statement? Since when did I ever say humans started spurting out all around the world and somehow possess the same genes but different in location with common traits. What a big load of bull. I never said that and if that is how u understand evolution, then u completely dont understand it at all.

In evolution, there is no such thing as a first homo sapien. We EVOLVED from apes (wherether you like it or not, it is the truth) to a point where we ceased to look like one and more of a different kind of species, the human species. The first modern human species came from Africa. There were many different kinds of competing human species. The neanderthals who came from Europe for example. There were stockier, had larger skulls and basically a brute as compared to the humans from africa. Nonetheless, the neanderthals were definately a human species. This right here shows that homo sapiens evolved differently based on location. It also shows your deficient understanding of human evolution aswell as your knowledge of human history. Humans did not just start spurting out all over the world as how you put it. The human species from Africa conquered the world, aswell as any competing human species who either went extinct or was assimilated with our african species through mating with us. That is why we all look the same, yet have such a wide diversity of race, color, etc. So congratulations for nothing. A catholic who doesnt understand basic human history let alone evolution of human beings and yet argues like he does.

Edited by Riddle, 07 April 2010 - 07:04 AM.


#2013
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Flamescale @ Apr 7 2010, 01:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Err, no it wouldn't. Individuals do not evolve; groups do. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a group. A species in this context is a group that cannot successfully reproduce with other groups. This happens gradually, so there is no specific moment when a particular member of the group goes from Species A to Species B.

yes. But that group would be in generally the same area. There wouldn't be a group in China and a group in France and a group in Africa and a group in South America and a group in Australia. In that group, there would be a first homo-sapien sapien. You don't go from no homo sapien sapiens to 10 homo sapien sapiens.

QUOTE
so you're telling me the definition of ID is identical to creationism, apart from the fact that creationism replaces 'omnipotent being' with an abrahamic god. that doesnt make my definition of ID much different from yours.

no. Creationism is belief in a creation myth not necessarily the abrahamaic one. Intelligent Design is belief that the first cause was caused by some intelligent creator. There is an enormous difference.
QUOTE
Because we dont see scientists preaching for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on a country..

world war 2 says hi. But again, science is this mysterious box of golden light that can do no wrong and religion is a cesspool of horrible acts. I was watching angels and demons last night and I heard a line that I think applies, "My church feeds the poor and hungry and comforts the dying, what has your church done?"
QUOTE
Let me get this straight, you are saying homo sapiens sapiens, which I think you refer to as modern humans have a close relative but different from the modern humans. In which case is Correct.

We are homo sapien sapiens... There is only one human species. that species is homo sapien sapiens. There were competing species that evolved from homo erectus and homo sapien sapiens are the end of the line of the winning species. The racial traits happened long after homo sapien sapiens emerged as the dominant species.

and I never said we didn't evolve from apes. I believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution does not in any way contradict my beliefs.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2014
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In that group, there would be a first homo-sapien sapien.

Again. No, there certainly wouldn't be. There is no specific moment when an individual who is born ceases to be of the same species as their parents. When a group breaks off and begins down one evolutionary path and given enough time is unable to reproduce with the former group, then it can be labeled a separate species. This cannot happen at the individual level.*

*except for species which reproduce asexually or are hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates, but this obviously isn't the case here.

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 02:51 PM.


#2015
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Flamescale @ Apr 7 2010, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Again. No, there certainly wouldn't be. There is no specific moment when an individual who is born ceases to be of the same species as their parents. When a group breaks off and begins down one evolutionary path, and given enough time is unable to reproduce with the former group then it can be labeled a separate species. This cannot happen at the individual level.*

*there is a possible exception here for species that reproduce asexually or are hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates, but this obviously isn't the case here.

there are shades of grey around the distinction, but there is a definite point where a species would be considered on one side or the other. The point may be heavily debated, but there is always a first one.

There cannot not be a first one. When looked at through the lens of geological time, it would look like suddenly there were hundreds. When looked at through the perspective of human time there would be a first individual.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2016
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
Ugh. Groups evolve, and this happens gradually. At no point will an individual switch from being part of one species to another.

There absolutely will not be a "first homo sapien sapien" regardless of the time frame because this is incompatible with the basic mechanics of evolution.

e: rewording

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 03:34 PM.


#2017
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Flamescale @ Apr 7 2010, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ugh. Groups evolve, and this happens gradually. At no point will an individual switch from being part of one species to another.

There are absolutely will not be a "first homo sapien sapien". This is not even debatable. What you are suggesting is incompatible with basic definitions.

so if there is no first one, then there can be none.

Your assertion that there is no first one is impossible. It might not be a noticeable difference from one side to the other, but there must be a first one or there can be no second, third, fourth, etc. one
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2018
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
so if there is no first one, then there can be none.

Your assertion that there is no first one is impossible. It might not be a noticeable difference from one side to the other, but there must be a first one or there can be no second, third, fourth, etc. one

I don't know how to explain it any more because you don't seem to have a basic understanding of how speciation works. Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say you have a bucket filled with paint of a certain colour. You begin adding one drop at a time of another colour, and gradually the entire mixture begins to change. At no point between two drops can you say that a new colour has been formed because the mixture after each drop will look basically identical to the mixture before the previous drop. But given enough drops over time, you might end up with a completely different colour from the one you started with.

By similar logic, you will not have an organism of a particular species giving birth to offspring of a new species. But if a group is isolated (usually geographically) from another then small changes will accumulate over time and eventually you will end up with offspring that are unable to reproduce with the original group before the split. We might call this a new species. This does not happen at the individual level, and indeed, it cannot happen at the individual level.

#2019
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Flamescale @ Apr 7 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know how to explain it any more because you don't seem to have a basic understanding of how speciation works. Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say you have a bucket filled with paint of a certain colour. You begin adding one drop at a time of another colour, and gradually the entire mixture begins to change. At no point between two drops can you say that a new colour has been formed because the mixture after each drop will look basically identical to the mixture before the previous drop. But given enough drops over time, you might end up with a completely different colour from the one you started with.

By similar logic, you will not have an organism of a particular species giving birth to offspring of a new species. But if a group is isolated (usually geographically) from another then small changes will accumulate over time and eventually you will end up with offspring that are unable to reproduce with the original group before the split. We might call this a new species. This does not happen at the individual level, and indeed, it cannot happen at the individual level.

Yes the change at an instant is slight, but there is a point where there is a change. To an observer it wouldn't be noticed, but there is still a change and a point where the difference between one drop and the next is the difference between one color and the next.

If you look at a gray scale, there are a lot of grays, and standing at one gray looking at the next gray would seem the same. To an outside observer though a change from white to black can be seen and there is a point where the solution becomes a distinctly new color from the original color.

There must be always be a first otherwise there can be no second. We are arguing semantics now and it is entirely uneffectual to the actual debate.
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#2020
Flamescale

Flamescale
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Apr 7 2010, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes the change at an instant is slight, but there is a point where there is a change. To an observer it wouldn't be noticed, but there is still a change and a point where the difference between one drop and the next is the difference between one color and the next.

If you look at a gray scale, there are a lot of grays, and standing at one gray looking at the next gray would seem the same. To an outside observer though a change from white to black can be seen and there is a point where the solution becomes a distinctly new color from the original color.

There must be always be a first otherwise there can be no second. We are arguing semantics now and it is entirely uneffectual to the actual debate.

Ugh... There is no specific point. There is no first homo sapien sapien because that whole notion is incompatible with the definition of a species, and with the most basic mechanics of evolution.

This is not semantics. This is how science works, and you have it completely wrong. I realize this is somewhat derailing the thread, but I'd be glad to stop posting if you would go and educate yourself on the subject a little bit.

Edited by Flamescale, 07 April 2010 - 03:39 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users