Mighty AC Posted October 29, 2012 Report Posted October 29, 2012 I'm a biology nerd for those who are wondering xP Me too. When talking evolution with non-nerds I like to use Ring Species (Definition Here) as an example. Since, they are living examples of speciation events that we can see in action, it seems to resonate with people. Basically, neighbouring populations of an organism can interbreed with one another, but as they populations move farther down the line or around the ring the genetic drift is great enough that the species can no longer interbreed. A - B - C - D - E - F The letters above represent populations of lizards living along the coast. A can breed with B, C and D. F can breed with C, D and E but the genetic difference between A and F is too great and they can non longer interbreed. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
BubberMiley Posted October 29, 2012 Report Posted October 29, 2012 Beware the anti-Christians who claim to speak for the Lord. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
dre Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Me too. When talking evolution with non-nerds I like to use Ring Species (Definition Here) as an example. Since, they are living examples of speciation events that we can see in action, it seems to resonate with people. Basically, neighbouring populations of an organism can interbreed with one another, but as they populations move farther down the line or around the ring the genetic drift is great enough that the species can no longer interbreed. A - B - C - D - E - F The letters above represent populations of lizards living along the coast. A can breed with B, C and D. F can breed with C, D and E but the genetic difference between A and F is too great and they can non longer interbreed. I thought the example of elephants was pretty interesting. The number of elephants born with a mutation causing them not to have tusks, or to have smaller tusks is increasing in areas where theres lots of poaching. It appears that in at least one case, however, evolution is occurring at what seems like jet speed. In the last 150 years, the world’s elephant population has evolved much smaller tusks. The average size of an African elephant’s tusks has gone down by half in the last century and a half. Indian elephants have undergone a similar tusk size reduction. Experts believe the rapid evolution of the massive land mammals is due to poaching. Zoologists from Oxford University suggest that ivory poachers, who go for the largest males with the largest tusks, have caused the breeding behaviors of the animals to change rapidly in a short time. Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/elephants-evolve-smaller-tusks-due-to-poaching/711#p26HJd15fbILKQWD.99 Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I guess you guys can't find any refutes from scientists! And it's not for lack of trying. Edited October 30, 2012 by betsy Quote
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 I guess you guys can't find any refutes from scientists! And it's not for lack of trying. You failed at trolling betsy. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
betsy Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 You failed at trolling betsy. So now we're twisting the meaning of,"trolling," yes? "Trolling" now means posting something the opponents cannot refute! Quote
BubberMiley Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 So now we're twisting the meaning of,"trolling," yes? I believe "trolling" means having contempt for the Lord God's word while pretending to have respect for it. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I believe "trolling" means having contempt for the Lord God's word while pretending to have respect for it. Nice try. Such valiant effort! Though senseless sputters.... Edited October 30, 2012 by betsy Quote
kimmy Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 This chicken "revelation" is just another typical example of Betsy's general mode of operation. Take a scientific statement that she doesn't even actually understand, and proclaim that it supports the Bible as a factual source of scientific knowledge. Researchers have found that a protein called ovocleidin (OC-17) is crucial in the formulation of eggshells, and it is produced in the pregnant hen's ovaries, the Daily Express reports.Therefore, the answer to the conundrum must be that the chicken came first. Using a high-tech computer to look at the molecular structure of a shell, the team of scientists from the Universities of Sheffield and Warwick found that OC-17 acts as a catalyst, kick-starting the conversion of calcium carbonate in the chicken's body into calcite crystals. UK scientists: Ovocleidin-17 is key to crack chicken-egg riddle They protein they're discussing is the one that gives chickens the ability to form calcium carbonate into the crystals that form hard-shelled eggs. The first hard-shelled chicken-egg was laid by a chicken that wasn't born from a hard-shelled egg. But where did that chicken come from?! Betsy's answer is, one assumes, that God must have created it as an adult creature from the dust of the earth. A biologist will tell you that it hatched from a soft-shelled egg. Not actually anything to support a Biblical account of creation here. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
cybercoma Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 You failed at trolling betsy. Sadly, she's dead serious. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Sorry Sleipnir and Squid. You gotta do better than that if you want your views to be taken seriously. I provided sources from scientists - therefore refute it by providing the same. Mere personal opinion from the peanut gallery is not considered a rebutt at all. No matter how much evidence is thrown at you, you have made up your own mind long time ago, and these threads have become nothing more than an exercise in futility. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) It's not even that she has made up her mind. The problem is that she's not open to learning anything. I'm not sure if she truly just doesn't understand the responses or if she just doesn't want to. I guess I'm not so cynical to think that she doesn't understand, so she seems to me to be a case in point of religiosity gone horribly wrong. Her mind has been riveted shut, decidedly so, and it's truly sad. Edited October 30, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 So now we're twisting the meaning of,"trolling," yes? "Trolling" now means posting something the opponents cannot refute! Are you just trying to boost your post count or what? Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
GostHacked Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 It's not even that she has made up her mind. The problem is that she's not open to learning anything. I'm not sure if she truly just doesn't understand the responses or if she just doesn't want to. I guess I'm not so cynical to think that she doesn't understand, so she seems to me to be a case in point of religiosity gone horribly wrong. Her mind has been riveted shut, decidedly so, and it's truly sad. The non-religous are told to have an open mind, in which many of them already do. But to ask that of the kind that Betsy seems to portray is for all intents and purposes, impossible. So there is no intent for genuine debate as compromises would eventually happen if people had an open mind. Instead of a reply of 'hmm interesting view point I can see that', we get 'no f'n way dude!'. There is another possibility as well, which all groups would have a problem with... and that possibility is that we are ALL wrong, theist, athiest and agnostics alike. Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Betsy, what is your point then? I thought you were denying evolution, but am confused by your odd responses. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
WIP Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 There is another possibility as well, which all groups would have a problem with... and that possibility is that we are ALL wrong, theist, athiest and agnostics alike. Considering the foibles of human reasoning abilities that we are learning - thanks to neuroscience and cognitive psychology - are even worse than previously suspected, why should it be expected....even as a hypothetical, that everyone on Earth should share the same "correct" metaphysical answers to all the big questions? Many evangelical atheists advance a theory that everyone will be more satisfied with life, the more accurate their beliefs are....but there is no evidence to provide for support of this claim! While on the other side, today's Christian fundamentalists fully embrace historically anti-Christian thinking like their social darwinist economic theories, and American fundies in particular, added the extreme nationalist concept called "American Exceptionalism" where the creator of the Universe has supposedly favoured their nation (and Israel also according to Christian Zionists). And yet, if I open the Bible, I can find books such as the one later named "Matthew," which informs Christians that their salvation depends on what they do, not what they believe.....at least if we use the parable of the sheep and goats found in Matthew 25 as the litmus test for salvation: 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Hmmmm, so where do all the good social darwinist Christians like Paul Ryan go? Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
GostHacked Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 WIP, I don't think you fully understood what I was proposing in my statement. What if we are ALL wrong? And by that I mean, no heaven, no hell, bible/creationism is not true and at the same time evolution is not true. Agnostics by default would be wrong as well because there may not even be an argument to begin with in order to take a neutral position. Quote
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Betsy, what is your point then? I thought you were denying evolution. The only thing that could challenge the concept of evolution is the continuation of human stupidity. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
betsy Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 Betsy, what is your point then? I thought you were denying evolution, but am confused by your odd responses. What do you mean? Explain. Quote
Mighty AC Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 What are you claiming to have proven that has not been refuted? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Mighty AC Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Sleipnir very simply pointed out that the first "chicken" was born of an egg produced by its ancestors. Red Jungle Fowl + Grey Jungle Fowl = chicken egg = adult chicken + adult chicken = chicken egg = ETC In the example two different populations interbreed creating offspring that differ genetically. Over enough time and breeding the genetic make up of a group of birds may be different enough to be classed as a new species. In this case a chicken...however, those newly classed chickens were still born from the eggs of their ancestors. If you follow the trail of ancestors back far enough you get to the question of how did the first simple lifeforms come to be. That's where some say a god started the process. Others say it was abiogenesis; which, is the creation of living matter from non-living substances. Scientists are now observing the creation of the building blocks of life from natural reactions under the right conditions. This work seems destined to fill in another gap the religious like to stick a god into. Simple Reaction Makes The Building Blocks of a Nucleic Acid Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
betsy Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) What are you claiming to have proven that has not been refuted? I posted that last fact, with a source to back my claims. The opposition don't agree with it and yet can't support their claims Edited October 30, 2012 by betsy Quote
Sleipnir Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I posted that last fact, with a source to back my claims. and I'll explain why....to use the bible as a 'fact' in conjunction with science would automatically discredit your argument. The opposition don't agree with it and yet can't support their claims "The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken." I find this absolutely . The same argument could be made for 'the chicken can therefore only exist if it has been created by an egg'. Reason for calling it out? Check the phylogenetic info I posted a while back and show me why that is incorrect (don't use the 'because this article says so' which would mean you can't think for yourself). Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
eyeball Posted October 30, 2012 Report Posted October 30, 2012 Well, I guess I know why this thread will remain 'marked as read'. 100 pages later and it still comes down to chickens and eggs. "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Do tell... Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Mr.Canada Posted October 31, 2012 Report Posted October 31, 2012 I find it interesting that so many atheists are seemingly obsessed with the Bible. I do think it's great because the more that people are exposed to it I like to think that some of the word of God will seep into them. Perhaps this is Gods way of exposing non believers to his word. Thank you Jesus. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.