 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote:And yet no ordinary person would have evocations of Mickey Spillane or Alfred Hitcock when hearing the rather innocuous and highly unstilted phrase "and yet."
I can see you at a board meeting now.
CEO: Our expenditures increased last month and our payroll was up, and yet we did manage to eke out a profit.
Hype: Ohhh, sir. Do tell. I love a mystery. Will you turn out the lights and tell us more?
It's true that "and yet" does sound less stilted in the middle of a sentence than at the beginning, where it's better suited to sentences like "And yet, while the safe stood apparently untouched, the diamonds were missing."
And I have to wonder if omitting a "c" and an "h" from Hitchcock's name was something of a Freudian slip.
If so I'll leave it to you to unravel the subconcious quirk that produced it. Maybe I want to hit on the cocks of guys named Alfred? More than likely it's that Goo-goo Cluster residue beteen the "h" and the "g" that made my striking of the "h" ineffective. See? I said "beteen." That's due to a clump of Funyon residue twixt (how stilted is twixt?) the "q" and the "w."
But then again, maybe the idea of a hitch associated with a cock was too much for my squeamish psyche to contemplate, scrotum-wise. Actually, that was a rather crude remark. And yet, I said it anyway. Actually, I just started that sentence with "and yet." So settle back, snuggle up in a cozy chair and dim the lights.
Last edited on Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:44 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:31 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote:
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out.
That is evolution in a nutshell. The fact that you choose not to call the survivors a "higher" species is countered by the very claims of evolution, where we can hear all about how the postulated ancestors were invariably less "advanced" than their descendants. Now if you'd like to make the case that the Australopithecenes were not a lower species than you and I are now members of, I'm all ears.
No, that's really not right. In fact, Darwin said it himself:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Exactly. The strongest. The ones most adaptable to change.
I suppose you could claim that a species is "higher" simply by virtue of the fact that it's better suited to its environment - but that doesn't imply any additional value judgments.
That's why you should have read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with value judgements. The superiority is in terms of physiological and mental skills, as I said. One with prehensile skills is stronger than one without. And you simply cannot deny that evolution teaches the ....well..... the evolution of a grasping hand from a non-grasping hand, eo ipso.... lower to higher.
I mean, c'mon. This is going to be hard to deny. Evolution teaches that all animal life is ultimately descended from cellular, microscopic growth. To make the case that an adult elephant or a goose or a june bug is not a higher species than an adult microscopic clump of cells is going to be a hard sale.
No, you've still got it wrong. It isn't "physiological and mental skills" that evolution favors. It's simply adaptation. Sometimes, physiological and mental skills are an adaptation; sometimes, they're not.
Take, for example, the sponge. It's is a perfectly evolved life form - and has been for millions of years. Physiological or mental skills would not make it "more evolved" - they'd force it to expend more energy and thus threaten its very survival.
Here's another example. Let's compare two familes: the ant and the elephant. The elephant has physiological skills and mental skills that put the ant to shame. Is it "more evolved?" No. In a hundred years, the elephant will likely be extinct, whereas the ant will still be swarming over every corner of the earth.
It's not the strongest of the species that survive; it's not the most intelligent; it's the ones most responsive to change. From an evolutionary standpoint, if we must use the word "higher," the ant will soon be proven a "higher" family than the elephant.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 12:43 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote:
2) (this is the clincher that demonstrates that Stiggy's knowledge of evolution is roughly on a par with my knowledge of baseball) that evolution means that speciation occurs from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, at which time the "lower" form dies out.
That is evolution in a nutshell. The fact that you choose not to call the survivors a "higher" species is countered by the very claims of evolution, where we can hear all about how the postulated ancestors were invariably less "advanced" than their descendants. Now if you'd like to make the case that the Australopithecenes were not a lower species than you and I are now members of, I'm all ears.
No, that's really not right. In fact, Darwin said it himself:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Exactly. The strongest. The ones most adaptable to change.
I suppose you could claim that a species is "higher" simply by virtue of the fact that it's better suited to its environment - but that doesn't imply any additional value judgments.
That's why you should have read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with value judgements. The superiority is in terms of physiological and mental skills, as I said. One with prehensile skills is stronger than one without. And you simply cannot deny that evolution teaches the ....well..... the evolution of a grasping hand from a non-grasping hand, eo ipso.... lower to higher.
I mean, c'mon. This is going to be hard to deny. Evolution teaches that all animal life is ultimately descended from cellular, microscopic growth. To make the case that an adult elephant or a goose or a june bug is not a higher species than an adult microscopic clump of cells is going to be a hard sale.
No, you've still got it wrong. It isn't "physiological and mental skills" that evolution favors. It's simply adaptation. Sometimes, physiological and mental skills are an adaptation; sometimes, they're not.
Take, for example, the sponge. It's is a perfectly evolved life form - and has been for millions of years. Physiological or mental skills would not make it "more evolved" - they'd force it to expend more energy and thus threaten its very survival.
Here's another example. Let's compare two familes: the ant and the elephant. The elephant has physiological skills and mental skills that put the ant to shame. Is it "more evolved?" No. In a hundred years, the elephant will likely be extinct, whereas the ant will still be swarming over every corner of the earth.
It's not the strongest of the species that survive; it's not the most intelligent; it's the ones most responsive to change. From an evolutionary standpoint, if we must use the word "higher," the ant will soon be proven a "higher" family than the elephant.
Pardon me, but it is absolutely absurd to contend that a central tenet of evoloutionary theory is not that evolution occurs from a lower stage to a higher one. It hardly matters the method whereby this postulated transformation occurs, which in the case of evolution is via random mutations resulting in better "equipment" to survive an altering environment.
If one is to contend that all animal life on earth has been descended from single cellular growth, then they simply cannot make the argument that if true, the process did not result in higher species evolving from lower. No rational person can argue that a jackal is a less highly developed animal than whatever primordial slime is postulated to have taken on life thousands of million years ago.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 01:04 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Pardon me,
Fun fact of the day: in the UK, people generally only say "Pardon me" immediately after farting.
but it is absolutely absurd to contend that a central tenet of evoloutionary theory is not that evolution occurs from a lower stage to a higher one.
It's actually absolutely absurd to contend that that is a central tenet of evolutionary theory. Biologists aren't fond of value-laden words like "lower" and "higher."
If one is to contend that all animal life on earth has been descended from single cellular growth, then they simply cannot make the argument that if true, the process did not result in higher species evolving from lower. No rational person can argue that a jackal is a less highly developed animal than whatever primordial slime is postulated to have taken on life thousands of million years ago.
There's no rational basis for arguing whether a jackal is or isn't "highly developed," because "highly developed" isn't an objective term.
A bacterium that exists in the year 2009 has undergone millions of years of evolution, just like the cells in that jackal. Both the bacterium and the jackal are well adapted to their respective biological niches. And that's pretty much the extent of the facts on the subject. Whether you consider the jackal "more highly developed" is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 01:50 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Pardon me,
Fun fact of the day: in the UK, people generally only say "Pardon me" immediately after farting.
Then I do so in your general direction, suh! 
but it is absolutely absurd to contend that a central tenet of evoloutionary theory is not that evolution occurs from a lower stage to a higher one.
It's actually absolutely absurd to contend that that is a central tenet of evolutionary theory.
So, so wrong, hype. First of all, you have a problem with the heavy connotation of lower to higher in the name itself. After all, it is not called the theory of devolution. And the theory of natural selection which is crucial in understanding what evolution purports, gives rise to the evolutionist's belief that the more adaptable speciations adapt for the very reason that they are better equipped to do so in an altered environment. There is a value judgement in the results, even if it does not involve moral values. A mammal with prehensile abilities is simply able to accomplish more complex acts than its alleged ancestor who had yet to supposedly develop that trait.
Biologists aren't fond of value-laden words like "lower" and "higher."
A rise in mental skills and physiological strengths is inherent in the theory which they embrace. And an ability to add figures is a higher-scaled attribute than an inability to do so, regardless of how that fact may irk a few biologists.
Last edited on Wed Aug 12th, 2009 02:06 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1868 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Tryin' to live up to your name, Wrong-Way? Or maybe you'd like to claim you polled everyone.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where you think I claimed I read anyone's mind.
Yeah. Apparently. Here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Your words, W-W. They ain't goin' away.
Good. They stand as excellent proof that I never mentioned telepathy in any way whatosever.
As usual, you've come up empty, F.O.I.
I only see a reference to a betting pool, one where people, traditionally, enter their bets either verbally or on paper.Ah, excellent. You are even more skilled than a gifted telepathist. On August 6th, before you began your garveyard Professional AARM Poster shift, you sent out a secret poll (at least it wasn't on AARM, which by the reasoning here, means it was secret) and polled every AARM member as to whether I allegedly flaunt my alleged ignorance.
Now, when did I say I polled every member of AARM?
I only said that everyone involved in the pool put money on you continuing to flaunt your ignorance. Unfortunately, since everyone in the pool won that bet, they didn't make much money, but thems the breaks sometimes.
And apparently you took the pool BETWEEN asking the first above question in green and announcing the unanimity of the vote (or pool as you call it), also in green.
I would have asked you if you wanted to participate, Stig, but I thought that would be insensitive of me.
It was also suggested that you might have rigged the results, but I discounted that idea. I don't believe you're capable of not flaunting your ignorance on the subject of evolution.
No telepathy, eh?
Nope. None mentioned, alluded to, or hinted at in any way whatsover.
Is my poll theory correct then? Should I poll everyone as to whether they were polled about my allegedly flaunting my alleged ignorance, Wrong-Way?
Do what you like. But, I suspect you'll come up empty as usual, Full Of It. Just like you have this time, with your charges of telepathy.
I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance
Yeah, I know you did. Your predictive abilities make Jean Dixon look like a statistical scientist.
I don't know her record off hand (I know she's reputed to have predicted Kennedy's assassination, but I don't know what she actually said before that event), but in this case, I was spot on.
And yet you weren't.
And yet, I was. You continue to flaunt your ignorance of what evolution really is and how it really works.
You took no such poll and you have no such unanimous votes. You just love to bolster that new name of yours, doncha, W-W?
Go ahead and try to prove that, Full Of It. I enjoy watching you come up empty, every single time.
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
It just really can't get any easier than this. C'mon! Gimme a challenge. Bring on emmylou.
Anyway, here it is again for you to deny:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
And, once again, Full of It comes up empty.
Nothing about telepathy or reading anyone's mind there.
I keep telling you. Those words will reappear every time you deny them. (This makes shooting fish in barrels feel like breaking into Fort Knox.)
I don't deny the words at all. I don't have to. They prove, conclusively, that I never, ever, mentioned, hinted at or alluded to telepathy in any way whatsoever.
And they never will, no matter how many times you cut and paste them.
-- A2SG, guess you should have read them before you started cutting and pasting, huh?
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 10:33 am |
|
2a) Of course, he'll no doubt claim that the evolutionary biologists have the definition wrong. Futuyama would be so proud...
Witness Stiggy's current exchange with Hype...damn I love being right!
Now he'll probably claim I'm saying I can read minds...or perhaps forsee the future.
I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) saying that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate must also mean that we can observe humans speciate, and...
ASTOUNDING!! You're dropping your jaw over precisely the opposite of what I contended. In fact, let me just change the wording slightly:
I contend that the fact that fast-breeding species like fruit flies or bacteria can be observed to speciate CANNOT mean that we can observe humans speciate,
In other words, we cannot observe humans speciate, yet you accept as FACT that alleged human ancestor speciated BIG TIME!!
Yep, I fucked that sentence up and it was confusing...sorry. I'll repost what I meant here:
"I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) just because I claim that we can observe speciation in fast-breeding species, I must also be claiming that we can observe speciation in humans. I've never claimed this, nobody has claimed this, yet Stiggy keeps demanding we provide him with evidence of directly observed speciation in humans. It is a textbook straw-man."
Is that clearer?
The point of contention has never been that "fast-breeding speciation proves slow-breeding speciation"; you have consistently refused to accept that speciation occurs at all, even in fast-breeding species. So we can't proceed from there to a rationale for accepting proto-human speciation into humans, because you don't accept the first premise: that speciation occurs.
That's why I keep pointing out that you're presenting a straw-man argument. You want it to be about human speciation, because you reckon you can knock that one over. That's why you keep ignoring all the observed instances of speciation in fast-breeding species; it's a lot harder for you to refute that. That's why you have still failed to provide those "scores" of websites that refute the articles on TalkOrigins.
But none of that is nearly as amusing as watching you flounder about trying to define evolution. You couldn't dig yourself in deeper if I handed you a shovel, Stiggy. Every post you make demonstrates further that you just don't understand evolution. You don't even realise how much you're demonstrating this.
____________________
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 06:57 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: A rise in mental skills and physiological strengths is inherent in the theory which they embrace. And an ability to add figures is a higher-scaled attribute than an inability to do so, regardless of how that fact may irk a few biologists.
Well, it's becoming more and more apparent that you're not arguing against evolutionary theory, but against some stiggy-version of evolutionary theory that you've created as a straw man.
An ability to add figures requires an incredible investment of resources in mental development. It leads to offspring who require so much time to develop that they're utterly helpless for the first two or three years of life, and it uses so much caloric energy that the strength and speed of the organism needs to be scaled back or it risks starvation.
That, obviously, has proven to be a very good trade-off for our species - omnivores who live at the very top of the food chain. For, say, a herbivore or scavenger or carnivore that feeds on one specific prey, it would be a disaster. A horse doesn't need the ability to do math - it needs the ability for its offspring to hit the ground running fast enough to escape predators. A cheetah needs to invest its caloric energy in its legs, not in its brain.
In other words, it can be an evolutionary advantage to become less mentally developed, to become less physiological capable. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is whether the organism is well-adapted to its environment.
|
Sigmund Freud
Ronson
| Joined: | Sat Aug 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 426 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12th, 2009 07:40 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: Fun fact of the day: in the UK, people generally only say "Pardon me" immediately after farting.
In Austria, we usually say "Pardon that American next to me."
I often say "Excuse me" before I enter a room because I like to be different. The problem is the people in the room I am about to enter do not hear me, so I have to say it again and then leave, which defeats the purpose.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 12:14 am |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: When I spoke of your Kreskin-like powers I was speaking your ability to read "everyone's" mind. How nice that those minds you read all agree with yours, huh?
I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, Stig.
And yet you did, as we see here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Tryin' to live up to your name, Wrong-Way? Or maybe you'd like to claim you polled everyone.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where you think I claimed I read anyone's mind.
Yeah. Apparently. Here:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Your words, W-W. They ain't goin' away.
Good.
Good is right. We need an archive to chronicle your wrongness, Wrong-Way.
They stand as excellent proof that I never mentioned telepathy in any way whatosever.
And yet, I never claimed you "mentioned telepathy," as will be apparent in your next reply when you fail misearbly at providing the quote or even the implication that I did. I mentioned telepathy. Not you. Keep up, W-W.
I only see a reference to a betting pool, one where people, traditionally, enter their bets either verbally or on paper.Ah, excellent. You are even more skilled than a gifted telepathist. On August 6th, before you began your garveyard Professional AARM Poster shift, you sent out a secret poll (at least it wasn't on AARM, which by the reasoning here, means it was secret) and polled every AARM member as to whether I allegedly flaunt my alleged ignorance.
Now, when did I say I polled every member of AARM?
Well, I'm guessing of course. You ruled out telepathy. If you now rule out a poll, I give up.
I only said that everyone involved in the pool put money on you continuing to flaunt your ignorance.
Oh, I see. You had a pool, not a poll. And the pool was BEFORE your post. And you had looked at who bet what in the pool. And you found unanimity. I'm gonna go out on a limb and try another guess:
That unanimity total was ONE?, and the participant's intitials are W.W.
Unfortunately, since everyone in the pool won that bet,
Yeah, tell us more, Wrong-Way. How many entered? How much dough was at stake?
they didn't make much money
Cheapskate. Pay yourself!!
And apparently you took the pool BETWEEN asking the first above question in green and announcing the unanimity of the vote (or pool as you call it), also in green.
I would have asked you if you wanted to participate, Stig, but I thought that would be insensitive of me.
But you didn't ask anyone, so I'm hardly likely to get my feelings hurt either way.
It was also suggested that you might have rigged the results,
Hard to rig one damn vote.
but I discounted that idea.
It mighta been better to have "discounted" the whole "betting pool" schtick. Too easy:
"Here's betting that Wrong-Way will make a post without a bunch of wrong shit in it. Anyone want to bet he won't? That's what I thought?"
You need a writer, dude. Pauly Shore might be available.
I simply predicted you'd continue to "flaunt your ignorance
Yeah, I know you did. Your predictive abilities make Jean Dixon look like a statistical scientist.
I don't know her record off hand (I know she's reputed to have predicted Kennedy's assassination, but I don't know what she actually said before that event), but in this case, I was spot on.
And yet you weren't.
And yet, I was.
And yet you weren't. That's why you have no recourse but to blather on about pools involving your obviously non-objective evaluation of my alleged ignorance.
You continue to flaunt your ignorance of what evolution really is and how it really works.
And yet, I don't. It is what I KNOW, not what I do not know about evolutionary theory that force me to remind people like declin that a belief in evolution involves an alleged trasformation of animal life from a lower states to higher states.
You took no such poll and you have no such unanimous votes. You just love to bolster that new name of yours, doncha, W-W?
Go ahead and try to prove that,
Why? Who the hell would I be proving it to? You already KNOW you had no pool.
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
It just really can't get any easier than this. C'mon! Gimme a challenge. Bring on emmylou.
Anyway, here it is again for you to deny:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
And, once again, Full of It comes up empty.
Obviously not. Let's see it again, folks. It is NOT GOING AWAY:
-- A2SG, not that I really went out on a limb
Yeah. You just knew what "everyone" thought.
Uh, when did I ever say I knew what "everyone" THOUGHT?
It just really can't get any easier than this. C'mon! Gimme a challenge. Bring on emmylou.
Anyway, here it is again for you to deny:
"Okay, who had Stiggy going with "flaunting his ignorance" in the pool?
Everyone?"
Look, you're obviously going to need some help, W-W. You've really got no way out of this, but what follows, as lame as it is, might be your best bet:
"Uh, stiggy, Just because I peeked at the entries in the pool (whose names I can't divulge) and saw how they chose, it doesn't measn that I think they THOUGHT that which they chose."
Yeah, I know. It's lame. But its still better than most of your efforts.
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 12:15 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 12:26 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: "I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the flaw at Stiggy's contention that:
1) just because I claim that we can observe speciation in fast-breeding species, I must also be claiming that we can observe speciation in humans. I've never claimed this, nobody has claimed this, yet Stiggy keeps demanding we provide him with evidence of directly observed speciation in humans. It is a textbook straw-man."
I demand it becausse I know you can't provide it. All this bullshit garbage about my alleged ignorance on the subject is based on your own ignorance of my position here.
I do not ask you for empirical, observational verification for man's alleged ascent (or descent, depending on your value judgement) from the apes because I think that is what evolution teaches. I know it does not.
And that is why is is foolish to speak of the evolution of man as a fact. The ascent of man is a central tenet of the belief in evolution. It is even more foolish to attempt placing the verification of this theory on the same leeel of as mathematically exact verifications we obtain by using the laws of Physics.
But none of that is nearly as amusing as watching you flounder about trying to define evolution.
There is obviously no floundering. That's why you are incapable of coming up with a single thing I've attributed to evoloution that isn't true. I already discussed your blunder above in thinking that I thought evolutionists believed that human speciation can be observed. I know they know it can't. That's why they should not declare it a fact.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 12:37 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: A rise in mental skills and physiological strengths is inherent in the theory which they embrace. And an ability to add figures is a higher-scaled attribute than an inability to do so, regardless of how that fact may irk a few biologists.
Well, it's becoming more and more apparent that you're not arguing against evolutionary theory, but against some stiggy-version of evolutionary theory that you've created as a straw man.
Nonsense. Inherent in what EVO-(not DEVO-)lution purports is a belief that more adaptable (i.e higher scale) species result from "natural selection." There's no way around this. Take a walk in the woods. Observe the fauna. Compare this with biologists' speculations on what life was like thousands of billions of years ago. Microscopic, no prehensile, non-rational, non-erect.
I don't see how you can even pretend that you don't recognize a hierarchy with some collective overall scale of ascending value, be it in physiological or mental strength.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 12:52 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote: A rise in mental skills and physiological strengths is inherent in the theory which they embrace. And an ability to add figures is a higher-scaled attribute than an inability to do so, regardless of how that fact may irk a few biologists.
Well, it's becoming more and more apparent that you're not arguing against evolutionary theory, but against some stiggy-version of evolutionary theory that you've created as a straw man.
Nonsense. Inherent in what EVO-(not DEVO-)lution purports is a belief that more adaptable (i.e higher scale) species result from "natural selection." There's no way around this. Take a walk in the woods. Observe the fauna. Compare this with biologists' speculations on what life was like thousands of billions of years ago. Microscopic, no prehensile, non-rational, non-erect.
I don't see how you can even pretend that you don't recognize a hierarchy with some collective overall scale of ascending value, be it in physiological or mental strength.
What you still can't seem to grasp is that "adaptable" does not mean, imply, or suggest "physically or mentally strong." Sure, in some niches, strength and intelligence can be an asset. In others, they can be a hindrance.
Evolution wouldn't, for example, necessarily favor stronger ants. Often, the more successful ants will be the ones that are smaller, require less food, and can breed faster. Every adaptation comes with a caloric cost, and often the best adaptation is simply to be more thrifty with those calories.
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 01:02 am |
|
I demand it becausse I know you can't provide it.
So you've missed the, oh, what? 56 times I've already told you that nobody has directly observed speciation in humans?
I'm still wondering why you would do this, knowing full well that noboday has made the claim you're demanding proof of.
All this bullshit garbage about my alleged ignorance on the subject is based on your own ignorance of my position here.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. My comments on your ignorance of evolutionary theory are based on your statements about "higher" organisms and "lower" organisms" and "higher" organisms evolving from "lower" ones. Hype has already explained to you in several posts why this makes about as much sense as claiming that Jesus was a Hare Krishna, but you continue to argue that your definition of evolution is the right one.
I do not ask you for empirical, observational verification for man's alleged ascent (or descent, depending on your value judgement) from the apes because I think that is what evolution teaches. I know it does not.
I konw you know that. Nobody is arguing that this is what you've said. I have repeatedly stated that you are demanding the evidence of something that nobody has argued.
I have said that speciation has been observed in fast-breeding species like fruit flies and bacteria.
You consistently counter this argument by demanding proof that speciation has been observed in humans.
I don't know where your mental block is coming from, but it means that you keep missing the point that the observed speciation in fast-breeding species means that evolution is a fact, which was the original contention that you keep arguing against by demanding to see proof of human speciation.
And that is why is is foolish to speak of the evolution of man as a fact.
Which is why I brought up the analogy of Alpha Centauri. We see things fall down on Earth, and we see evidence there is gravity on Alpha Centauri, thus we come to the reasonable conclusion that things would also fall down on Alpha Centauri.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that "a hammer falls down on Earth", hence proving that gravity is a fact, and that various people like Newton and Einstein have come up with theories that explain how gravity works.
What you're essentially doing is saying that:
1) We haven't observed hammers falling down on Earth, and
2) Demanding proof of a hammer falling onto the surface of Alpha Centauri before you'll accept the existence of gravity there, and claiming that since we've not seen a hammer falling there, that Alpha Centauri can't possibly have any planets orbiting around it.
Let me restate the argument for you again:
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed to occur, in nature and in the lab. No, speciation has not been observed in all species. However, when it is observed in fast-breeding species, and we evidence of it occurring in slow-breeding species (genetics, the fossil record, etc), it is a reasonable conclusion that it also occurs in those slow-breeding species.
So, for the last time, please stop with demanding to know who has watched proto-humans speciate into humans.
The ascent of man is a central tenet of the belief in evolution.
"The ascent of man" is a nonsensical statement in evolutionary terms. Again, you're showing that you really don't understand it. Man hasn't "ascended". He has evolved. The human population has adapted to its environment and has, thus far, succceeded. We have no way of knowing whether these adaptations will, in the long term, do us any good.
We've been around, in more-or-less our present form, for about 100,000 years. Dinosaurs were around for over 200 million years. I think it's pretty arrogant to make the argument that we're somehow "higher" or "ascended" in comparison.
It is even more foolish to attempt placing the verification of this theory on the same leeel of as mathematically exact verifications we obtain by using the laws of Physics.
IT. WAS. AN. ANALOGY.
You just don't get analogies, do you Stiggy? Unless they're your own, of course.
My point is that we observe things happening HERE, and extrapolate that something similar is happening THERE.
It doesn't matter if its gravity, or the conversion of hydrogen into helium in the centre of a star, or cometary impact events: if we observe it, and observe the results of it, it is reasonable to presume that the same thing occurs elsewhere. If we observe speciation (which is the true difference in our positions, here) in one species, it is reasonable to presume the same thing happens in other species. And when that presumption is supported by evidence - the same evidence that results from the observed speciation events - it means that evoution in those other species is highly likely to be real.
There is obviously no floundering. That's why you are incapable of coming up with a single thing I've attributed to evoloution that isn't true.
Umm...the concept that "higher" species evolve from "lower" species. The idea that evolution is supposed to "aim" for some higher state.
I already discussed your blunder above in thinking that I thought evolutionists believed that human speciation can be observed. I know they know it can't.
And I've already clarified what I meant and agreed that I put it poorly. So I'm wondering why you feel the need to continue to argue against it.
That's why they should not declare it a fact.
We declare it a fact because it is a fact. It occurs. We've seen it occur. We've measured it in nature and in labs. We then theorise about why it occurs, and use that theory to predict where it might occur elsewhere, and make predictions about what we would expect to find if it does occur elsewhere.
And lo and behold, that's precisely what we find.
Of course, I'm sure your arguments will become clearer when you finally post those "scores" of websites debunking the articles on TalkOrigins...
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 01:27 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: AyHyperbole wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote: A rise in mental skills and physiological strengths is inherent in the theory which they embrace. And an ability to add figures is a higher-scaled attribute than an inability to do so, regardless of how that fact may irk a few biologists.
Well, it's becoming more and more apparent that you're not arguing against evolutionary theory, but against some stiggy-version of evolutionary theory that you've created as a straw man.
Nonsense. Inherent in what EVO-(not DEVO-)lution purports is a belief that more adaptable (i.e higher scale) species result from "natural selection." There's no way around this. Take a walk in the woods. Observe the fauna. Compare this with biologists' speculations on what life was like thousands of billions of years ago. Microscopic, no prehensile, non-rational, non-erect.
I don't see how you can even pretend that you don't recognize a hierarchy with some collective overall scale of ascending value, be it in physiological or mental strength.
What you still can't seem to grasp is that "adaptable" does not mean, imply, or suggest "physically or mentally strong." Sure, in some niches, strength and intelligence can be an asset. In others, they can be a hindrance.
Evolution wouldn't, for example, necessarily favor stronger ants. Often, the more successful ants will be the ones that are smaller, require less food, and can breed faster. Every adaptation comes with a caloric cost, and often the best adaptation is simply to be more thrifty with those calories.
Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher. That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 01:38 am |
|
Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
Utter, complete nonsense. Go and find a textbook on evolutionary biology and show us where it teaches "an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
How, exactly, are ants today "higher" than ant-analogues 100 million years ago.
That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
You think a fruit-fly is more complex than a Stegosaurus? Oh, wait...you're not talking about lilfe-forms 100 million years ago, but ones further back, right? Apparently, you don't think that "evolutionary theory" teaches that "evolution" has occurred in the last 100 million years or so. Why do I think this? Well, because I'm trying to figure out how all these species now are so much "higher" than species 100 million years ago.
It's kind of funny, because the most predominate life-forms on Earth are still microscopic, single-celled organisms. I wonder if that's because they're well adapted?
See, I'm wondering how evolution "teaches" that "higher" forms evolve from "lower" forms when it also teaches that canaries probably evolved from therapod dinosaurs like Utahraptor.
The only place evolution "teaches" that populations go from "lower" to "higher" forms, Stiggy, is in your mind and the minds of your fellow creationists who don't understand evolution.
Wow...this is even tops Daniel's claim that leukaemia is always "present" but needs to be "activated" by ionising radiation.
____________________
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 01:51 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: I demand it becausse I know you can't provide it.
So you've missed the, oh, what? 56 times I've already told you that nobody has directly observed speciation in humans?
Then 56 times you have implicitly agreed with me (assuming you understand the scientific method of inquiry) that you are quite wrong to declare it a fact.
I'm still wondering why you would do this, knowing full well that noboday has made the claim you're demanding proof of.
Google "socratic" and get back with me.
All this bullshit garbage about my alleged ignorance on the subject is based on your own ignorance of my position here.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. My comments on your ignorance of evolutionary theory are based on your statements about "higher" organisms and "lower" organisms" and "higher" organisms evolving from "lower" ones.
Exactly. And as I pointed out to hyperbole, denying such an elementary element of the theory is asinine. In fact, it reveals your ignorance of evolutionary theory.
Hype has already explained to you in several posts why this makes about as much sense as claiming that Jesus was a Hare Krishna
No he hasn't. You made that up.
I do not ask you for empirical, observational verification for man's alleged ascent (or descent, depending on your value judgement) from the apes because I think that is what evolution teaches. I know it does not.
I konw you know that. Nobody is arguing that this is what you've said. I have repeatedly stated that you are demanding the evidence of something that nobody has argued.
Then you may be getting closer to understanding my point. Since they have not argued that the evolution of man from speciations of ape-like creatures CAN be empirically verified, they would be fools to declare it a fact, as you have done.
I have said that speciation has been observed in fast-breeding species like fruit flies and bacteria.
You consistently counter this argument by demanding proof that speciation has been observed in humans.
I demand it because I want you to admit that you cannot provide it. You have done that. So that subject is now cloosed.
What remains is for you to explain how you can declare something factual that you ahve no empirical evidence for.
I don't know where your mental block is coming from, but it means that you keep missing the point that the observed speciation in fast-breeding species means that evolution is a fact,
Wrong. The theory of evoloution DEFINITELY encompasses the evoloution of man. And obviously empirical observations for a random mutation in a fruit fly cannot function as proof that man evolved from apes.
Which is why I brought up the analogy of Alpha Centauri. We see things fall down on Earth, and we see evidence there is gravity on Alpha Centauri, thus we come to the reasonable conclusion that things would also fall down on Alpha Centauri.
Andf that's why I told you before what an inappropriate analogy that was. We can empirically verify the FACT that mass has gravity. We can even mathematically universalize the relationship so that we can accurately predict said attraction. We can do nothing even remotely similar in our attempts to verify the theory that man evolved from apes.
The ascent of man is a central tenet of the belief in evolution.
"The ascent of man" is a nonsensical statement in evolutionary terms. Again, you're showing that you really don't understand it. Man hasn't "ascended". He has evolved.
Ridiculous. Anyone who does not look upon man as an ascent from the primordial singular cell life forms from whence he is theorized to have evolved, simply can't face reality. Sorry. But Albert Einstein was a higher life form than his postulated single-cell ancestors from thousands of millions of years ago.
I think it's pretty arrogant to make the argument that we're somehow "higher" or "ascended" in comparison.
It's stupid to do otherwise. But yeah, call me arrogant. I think Ludwig Van Beethoven was a higher life form than his alleged ancestor who walked on all fours in the forest, and couldn't utter a single word.
If we observe speciation (which is the true difference in our positions, here) in one species, it is reasonable to presume the same thing happens in other species. And when that presumption is supported by evidence - the same evidence that results from the observed speciation events - it means that evoution in those other species is highly likely to be real.
Likely??? I thought you said it was a fact. You see a fruit fly mutate in a lab, and so it's LIKELY that man's ancestors were single-cell organisms. No. You are not in the slightest bit persuasive.
There is obviously no floundering. That's why you are incapable of coming up with a single thing I've attributed to evoloution that isn't true.
Umm...the concept that "higher" species evolve from "lower" species.
Look, man. If you want to make the case that an amoeba-like creature that lived millions and millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than that to which you and I belong, knock yourself out. I'd like to see it.
The idea that evolution is supposed to "aim" for some higher state.
Supposed to?? No, that's what it's taught as allegedly doing: creating higher states through natural selection.
You really ought to acquaint yourself with stuff before you attempt a defense, declin.
We declare it a fact because it is a fact. It occurs. We've seen it occur.
But you haven't. Evolution teaches that man evolved from a lower species. You've never seen that. No one has.
We've measured it in nature and in labs.
Never. Not once.
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 01:52 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 02:00 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
Utter, complete nonsense. Go and find a textbook on evolutionary biology and show us where it teaches "an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
How, exactly, are ants today "higher" than ant-analogues 100 million years ago.
That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
You think a fruit-fly is more complex than a Stegosaurus? Oh, wait...you're not talking about lilfe-forms 100 million years ago, but ones further back, right? Apparently, you don't think that "evolutionary theory" teaches that "evolution" has occurred in the last 100 million years or so. Why do I think this? Well, because I'm trying to figure out how all these species now are so much "higher" than species 100 million years ago.
It's kind of funny, because the most predominate life-forms on Earth are still microscopic, single-celled organisms. I wonder if that's because they're well adapted?
See, I'm wondering how evolution "teaches" that "higher" forms evolve from "lower" forms when it also teaches that canaries probably evolved from therapod dinosaurs like Utahraptor.
The only place evolution "teaches" that populations go from "lower" to "higher" forms, Stiggy, is in your mind and the minds of your fellow creationists who don't understand evolution.
Wow...this is even tops Daniel's claim that leukaemia is always "present" but needs to be "activated" by ionising radiation.
How utterly completely asinine your argument is. I strongly suggest that you consult someone who actually knows what they are talking about...like...an evolutionary scientist.
Ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs. If he doesn't just laugh in your face, maybe he'll take the time to explain the postulated results of "natural selection" to you.
Last edited on Thu Aug 13th, 2009 02:18 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 02:50 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Aldaron wrote: Regardless of how individual ant speciations may adapt to the altering environment, it is simply undeniable that evolutionary theory teaches an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
Utter, complete nonsense. Go and find a textbook on evolutionary biology and show us where it teaches "an overall collective movement of life-forms from lower states to higher.
How, exactly, are ants today "higher" than ant-analogues 100 million years ago.
That fact is overwhelmingly obvious when we compare the the complexity of the fauna today (giraffes, possums, even fruit flies) with the exclusively microscopic life-forms that supposedly (and probably) existed thousand of millions of years ago.
You think a fruit-fly is more complex than a Stegosaurus? Oh, wait...you're not talking about lilfe-forms 100 million years ago, but ones further back, right? Apparently, you don't think that "evolutionary theory" teaches that "evolution" has occurred in the last 100 million years or so. Why do I think this? Well, because I'm trying to figure out how all these species now are so much "higher" than species 100 million years ago.
It's kind of funny, because the most predominate life-forms on Earth are still microscopic, single-celled organisms. I wonder if that's because they're well adapted?
See, I'm wondering how evolution "teaches" that "higher" forms evolve from "lower" forms when it also teaches that canaries probably evolved from therapod dinosaurs like Utahraptor.
The only place evolution "teaches" that populations go from "lower" to "higher" forms, Stiggy, is in your mind and the minds of your fellow creationists who don't understand evolution.
Wow...this is even tops Daniel's claim that leukaemia is always "present" but needs to be "activated" by ionising radiation.
How utterly completely asinine your argument is. I strongly suggest that you consult someone who actually knows what they are talking about...like...an evolutionary scientist.
Ask him if he thinks that the heterotroph from thousands of millions of years ago was NOT a lower species than the one to which he himself currently belongs. If he doesn't just laugh in your face, maybe he'll take the time to explain the postulated results of "natural selection" to you.
I already have "consulted" evolutionary scientists - in the sense of reading their work.
You might like to do the same thing. Futuyama would be a good place to start...any of his stuff is accessble and readable, and it might make you realise how absurd is your contention that evolution is about "lower to higher".
You simply couldn't be more wrong. It seems like you're taking stuff Darwin mused about and applying it to modern evolutionary biology. Darwin kick-started the theory - but it barely resembles what he wrote, these days.
And just to reiterate for someone insane enough to be still reading this thread:
Arguing that evolution is not a fact because speciation has been observed in fruit-flies and bacteria but not in humans is like arguing that gravity is not a fact because it has been observed on Earth and not (let's say now) a particular star near the centre of the Andromeda Galaxy.
____________________
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 13th, 2009 03:12 am |
|
And just a further note for Stiggy:
New Scientist busts another Evolution myth
Don't worry Stiggy...you don't even have to read down the page to find the article - it's right there at the top.
____________________
|
Current time is 04:11 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|
|
|
