itt: evolution and trolling

[Cops]

Weezer > My Bloody Valentine

edit: squeezer, i'm curious as to what you've been working on in regards to literature. i'd love to read some of it.

[Dabram]

goddamnit gran guerrero, pay some attention!

[DoTheFandango]

Weezer > My Bloody Valentine

edit: squeezer, i'm curious as to what you've been working on in regards to literature. i'd love to read some of it.

dude i agree, whole-heartily
but LOVELESS.
my god LOVELESS > the last 4 weezer albums. I think. I don't know. Mainly because I'm angst and have been playing as a pyro and kicking ass in TF2 and I like killing things right now
DRUGS>

[Epinephrine]

Milosh I find it funny that you can flat out say the theory of evolution is false, especially when you don't even know what the theory of evolution is, nor can you accurately explain the theory. I know this, because your questions, and the 'answers' that you attribute towards the theory are just plain misleading or don't have anything to do with it at all.

You are completely perverting it for your own ends, and this is just pure ignorance on your behalf.

Furthermore, your rejection of evolution is quite dogmatic as you do not seem to be willing to listen to arguments, nor do you wish to even really learn about evolution more yourself. All you want to do is plug your ears and say 'nono wolves didn't come from whales, it can't be true!' (as if anyone believes that anyway LOL).

Obviously if you have no willingness to learn or to expand your own knowledge for whatever personal reasons, then why even pretend to be so?

No theory is ever going to answer all your questions, or explain everything. It is not the purpose of the theory to do so. It is merely a framework within which to make very educated guesses about greater truths within the world. Furthermore, neither the theory of evolution nor science in any way ever say that it is impossible for god to exist. Only that from what we know, and from what we observe and everything that we can see, evolution is happening all around it, evolution happened before us, and the world most probably came to how it is because of it.

Science doesn't have all the answers, but it is a logical and methodical way to understand the world around us using the only truth that we can truly ever be sure about, the truth gained from observation and experimentation, and the willingness to constantly update what we believe is 'true' from constant and new research.

(and yes as a former biology major, I am one of the few people on this board qualified to argue in favour of evolution as I know a hell of a lot more about it than most people)

[gran guerrero]

goddamnit gran guerrero, pay some attention!

eh, I read like a couple lines and was like fuck it.

[milosh]

Milosh I find it funny that you can flat out say the theory of evolution is false,

I said that?

especially when you don't even know what the theory of evolution is,

I don't? Is it not the idea of 'natural selection' based on beneficial mutations of offspring?

nor can you accurately explain the theory.

Well, I'm no dictionary, but I think the answer is here: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Furthermore, your rejection of evolution is quite dogmatic as you do not seem to be willing to listen to arguments,

What argument am I not listening to? I may consider an argument and find it to not be true, but I am listening.

nor do you wish to even really learn about evolution more yourself. All you want to do is plug your ears and say 'nono wolves didn't come from whales, it can't be true!' (as if anyone believes that anyway LOL).

My ears are unplugged. Please provide the evidences/facts that support the Theory of Evolution. By the way it's whales from wolves(specifically wolf like creatures).

Furthermore, neither the theory of evolution nor science in any way ever say that it is impossible for god to exist.

I never claimed that they did.

(and yes as a former biology major, I am one of the few people on this board qualified to argue in favour of evolution as I know a hell of a lot more about it than most people)

I am a Biology major. I take my MCAT this Spring and plan on attending medical school. I'm interested in nuerosurgery and anesthesiology.

[Epinephrine]

If you're a biology major, why do you even bother asking questions like 'where does matter come from' as if the theory of evolution has anything to do with that?? geez.

And Milosh, if you start quoting long passages as supporting statements to your arguments, then that is your opinion. Or else you're just being a troll.

[milosh]

I do revoke the manner in which I asked the questions. I did not intend to try to force you all to fit all of the answers into one Theory. If you have the answers, I am interested. I'm just searching for truth as are you(I think).

Well, I did post this statement.

[Epinephrine]

BTW, since you actually say you are a biology major, I find it interesting that you don't actually even bother attacking any particular part of the theory of evolution, but just rather insinuate the the entire thing is wrong because you just 'can't accept it'. Then you state your only reason for even bringing up ID is to get people to start 'thinking critically', when it has been shown over and over again, that ID is nothing more than religious dogma made by non-scientists or at least those with a very strong agenda and with almost no scientific proof, dressed up to 'look' like it has credibility within science.

Thinking critically means that you show both sides of an argument, and show pros and cons of both sides. All you've done is keep mentioning how evolution simply doesn't work, and how there is all these reasons to believe in ID instead.

[PhaTz]

They don't even teach the same "scientific facts" in other countries.. You can't argue what's truly correct and what isn't!

Some of you should look into Chinese philosophies, the simplest way to put everything into perspective for me is through the basic concept of the bagua(eight trigram):

無極生有極, 有極是太極,
太極生兩儀, 即陰陽;
兩儀生四象: 即少陰、太陰、少陽、太陽,
四象演八卦， 八八六十四卦

and in English:

The Limitless produces the delimited, and this is the Absolute
The Taiji produces two forms, named yin and yang
The two forms produce four phenomena, named lesser yang, great yang (taiyang also means the Sun), lesser yin, great yin (taiyin also means the Moon).
The four phenomena act on the eight trigrams (ba gua), eight eights are sixty-four hexagrams.

So in my view, everything has its opposite, and that nobody's wrong here, just a difference in perception to the same subject.

Aside from that, the initial teachings of Zen Buddhism begins with a simple painting of primary objects(triangle square circle), the three primary objects are most likely the very first things we were taught to recognize since preschool.

My point of view is, if you can understand the meaning of the circle, you will sooner understand the meaning of life and why we've co-existed before and why we're co-existing now.

All in all, just because you don't know everything, does not mean our whole race don't. Information exchange is key, ain't that why we use the same language in the first place? =b

P.S. Ignorance is not bliss; the Chinese call it "frog within a well" (My point of view)

[milosh]

BTW, since you actually say you are a biology major, I find it interesting that you don't actually even bother attacking any particular part of the theory of evolution, but just rather insinuate the the entire thing is wrong because you just 'can't accept it'. Then you state your only reason for even bringing up ID is to get people to start 'thinking critically', when it has been shown over and over again, that ID is nothing more than religious dogma made by non-scientists or at least those with a very strong agenda and with almost no scientific proof, dressed up to 'look' like it has credibility within science.

Thinking critically means that you show both sides of an argument, and show pros and cons of both sides. All you've done is keep mentioning how evolution simply doesn't work, and how there is all these reasons to believe in ID instead.

Well, I have attacked particular parts of scientific belief, though perhaps not directly pertaining to the Theory of Evolution. It may not be extremely obvious, but my main point is in the improbability that the spontaneous assimilation of life can occur by means of organic compounds being struck by lighting. The best replicated experiment created a solution of 2% amino acids and 98% harmful compounds. Only 2 of the 20 kinds of necessary amino acids were assimilated and would have been destroyed if exposed to extreme voltage again.

Skip this paragraph if you'd like:
(Not even mentioning that half of these amino acids were right-handed while all amino acids in life are left-handed. Also that proteins average at least one polypeptide of (on average) 445 of the 20 amino acids and just one difference of an amino acid ruins the protein. The difference between a person who is healthy and a person with sickle-cell anemia is one amino acid. Scientists estimate that life needs a bare minimum of 238 proteins to survive which means at the very least 105,910 perfectly arranged amino acids, and forget about ribosomes constructing these from mRNA because they don't exist. All of these amino acids would have to be spontaneously assimilated in the same location within a lipid bi-layer of phospholipids. This is just for the membrane and proteins. I haven't even begun to describe the impossibility of the most ordered and improbable molecule of them all, DNA. Let's just leave it at impossible, and I will stop ranting.)

EDIT: Sources on the fly:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
http://www.rae.org/revev6.html

...and remember that it's more than just the assimilation of life. Life must be sustained after it's created and then find a way to asexually reproduce(quickly before it's destroyed by chaotic primitive earth; it would have to already have some supply of ATP to do cellular processes as it cannot yet synthesize ATP). These reproduced offspring would be localized and would also have to be devoid of natural disaster(which was pretty much the whole earth at the time). If those odds still seem good to you, one of the cells would have to learn some form of chemiosmosis to synthesize ATP for further cell processes... the list of improbabilities continues.

There are definitely facts that my beliefs cannot directly or scientifically explain without the Theory of Evolution. In fact, there are a lot of such facts. One of which is why the second chromosome of humans is fused together making them have one less chromosome than apes. However, this is not completely related because there are thousands of differences in gene coding between the two and splitting the fused chromosome does not make an ape--it makes a nothing. As has been stated, if creationists use glossy dismissing statements such as "God did it" there can be no unexplainable phenomena. However, I believe that all of God's phenomena are somehow tied into the processes of the natural world(except of course the initial act of making it). [BEWARE SMALL RELIGIOUS TANGENT] I am not stating that I believe God must be conformed to such a system, and I do believe He created this system in the first place. I merely believe it is the system He chooses to carry out His phenomena. [END RELIGIOUS TANGENT]. There is a lot of stuff I can't explain.

[milosh]

Depends on how you measure it. I consider advanced technology, new math and new scientific breakthroughs all progress vital to our survival.

I never took the time to reply to this statement, but I would like to. Whatever technologies, GM foods, or gene therapies we've gained from the Theory of Evolution I would gladly trade for the combined effects of evolution on Hitler causing Nazism and the Holocaust, on Karl Marx and the idea of Communism, the slave trade, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, etc.

[Fluffz]

It may not be extremely obvious, but my main point is in the improbability that the spontaneous assimilation of life can occur by means of organic compounds being struck by lighting.

I thought i showed you how far away from any logic your argument is. Your main point is not that it it impossible but that you BELIEVE it is and you try to feed it to us trough messed up logic. How can you expect us to buy it.

An argument based on probabilities allows a failure per definition. Let me rephrase it, you say your main argument against evolution is also wrong.

[Stylez]

I don't get why everyone feels the need to barter with one another's thoughts. No one seems to take into consideration the others argument full heartedly.

I agree with Epinephrine about having both pro's and con's of any situation, but in all honesty, no one here actually ever does that. Most arguments on this site are biased and one-sided. I feel each person has credibility in their findings and with that falsified information as well, or halve truths.

Milosh seems to also think outside of the box, from ordinary perspectives. Not saying all his data is correct, nor am I saying his evidence supports any hypothesis he has made. What I am saying is that he has thought through different aspects of certain situations that most would have abandoned due to it having been proclaimed as "facts". Though none of these findings are facts, merely theories, supported by substantial evidence.

But hey, that's the part of discovery, exploring the confines and dwellings of your own thoughts. Making new possibilities happen when others thought it to be impossible.

[milosh]

I thought i showed you how far away from any logic your argument is. Your main point is not that it it impossible but that you BELIEVE it is and you try to feed it to us trough messed up logic. How can you expect us to buy it.

An argument based on probabilities allows a failure per definition. Let me rephrase it, you say your main argument against evolution is also wrong.

No, you actually showed me how far away from logic your brain operates. Of course it is not technically 'impossible' for life to assimilate or I wouldn't even be speaking of probabilities. I recognize that there is indeed a chance for it to occur; that is not what I'm contesting. There is a chance, but it is so infinitesimally small that it is unthinkable.

Let's for instance examine the probability of something with a one in a 10^40,000 chance. Before you hop up and get excited by that "one" perhaps you should consider the probability behind it. A one in a million chance can be written as 1:10^6. Yes, 10^6 is a million. Is your brain beginning to understand the probability of a one in 10^40,000 chance? Okay, so you have thought about it and find it highly improbable, but that "one" is still bothering your brain.

Well, it has been calculated that it is around a 1:10^40,000 chance that all the necessary proteins for life would spontaneously appear in the same location. I admit, there is a chance though it is very very small. Let us consider probability. If there are four doors to walk through the chance that I will walk through any one of them is 1:4. However, if each of those doors have another four doors behind them, the chance that I would walk through any of those doors is a 1:16 chance. You can see that the probability is multiplied. So let's return to the 1:10^40,000 chance of all proteins spontaneously assimilating in the same location. For each probability we encounter after that, such as the synthesis of DNA or the chance such a mechanism would find a way to asexually reproduce, we must multiply its probability to 1:10^40,000. How is this not getting across?

Let me rephrase it, you say your main argument against evolution is also wrong.

Well, I have attacked particular parts of scientific belief, though perhaps not directly pertaining to the Theory of Evolution.