How do Animals Evolve To Look Like Exact Replicas of Other Things in Nature?
- Thread starter SumBlackguyz
- Start date
Type Username Here
Not a new member
it is dishonest because you tried to pass a theory off as a fact
Et tu Brute?
I don't expect this from you brother Leyet.
There is everyday normal use of "theory" and then there is a theory in science and mathematics. A theory in science and mathematics is pretty much absolute fact.
You're using theory to mean "guess" or "hypothesis", which is right in common everyday use, but not in academia.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
it is dishonest because you tried to pass a theory off as a fact
You sound like a creationist now. Do you really not understand the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the common language definition of a theory?
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
LeyeT...Maybe in the future you should withdraw from posting in science topics and just read more, because a lot of the context, background science, and word usage is going over your head. 
I don't fault you for it either, it's difficult for most people to learn.
I don't fault you for it either, it's difficult for most people to learn.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
LeyeT...Maybe in the future you should withdraw from posting in science topics and just read more, because a lot of the context, background science, and word usage is going over your head.
I don't fault you for it either, it's difficult for most people to learn.
That's how he is with everything he talks about. He's doing the same thing about the Federal Reserve in the thread about the rating agency downgrading America's credit.
He wants to think things are a certain way, particularly that everything operates by some organized systemic pattern. Then he gets a bunch of assumptions in his head and tries to argue those assumption off top and fill in the blanks of the facts later. He seems very uncomfortable with accepting randomness, uncertainty, and unpredictability, and wants to believe everything from biology to economics happens in some planned, organized, harmonious way that can be identified and understood.
Nobody has a personal grudge against him. He's seems cool as fukk on the podcasts. Dudes try to tell him he's going about trying to understand things the wrong way, but he just keeps being stubborn and digging his heels in.
i dont agree with the usage so ill humbly have to fly in the face of tradition.
ive said this a million times you have to be careful what you label as a fact. because once you label something a fact your mind will filter all further incoming information according to that belief, whether it's right or wrong.
and you cant tell me that in your minds you are really holding space for that small probability that this particular theory could be wrong and/or incomplete. no you have already made a definitive judgment on whether it's true or false, when in reality we dont know.
if people could really remain impartial in weighing different theories concurrently in terms of their probabilities, then i could get down with this. but i dont see that balance. too often i see people misinterpret scientific theory for absolute fact, which can be dangerous. and that i dont agree with.
most people think the big bang is a fact. or that general relativity is a fact. when in reality the big bang is just a big guess and general relativity does not even exist at the quantum level.
on the grand scale we know shyt about the universe. but most people do not maintain their mental impartiality.
ive said this a million times you have to be careful what you label as a fact. because once you label something a fact your mind will filter all further incoming information according to that belief, whether it's right or wrong.
and you cant tell me that in your minds you are really holding space for that small probability that this particular theory could be wrong and/or incomplete. no you have already made a definitive judgment on whether it's true or false, when in reality we dont know.
if people could really remain impartial in weighing different theories concurrently in terms of their probabilities, then i could get down with this. but i dont see that balance. too often i see people misinterpret scientific theory for absolute fact, which can be dangerous. and that i dont agree with.
most people think the big bang is a fact. or that general relativity is a fact. when in reality the big bang is just a big guess and general relativity does not even exist at the quantum level.
on the grand scale we know shyt about the universe. but most people do not maintain their mental impartiality.
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
Actually I fukking will, because thats how scientific theory works. Conclusions drawn from evidence. If a similar body of evidence formed contradicts that, no, even more strongly, because you have to overturn consensus with even stronger evidence.... Then you know it is the most correct conclusion to draw.
That being said, I will regard many of these theories as essential "fact" because they are applicable, observable, and have that evidence.
smh.
good god leyet. its always funny to see someone expose themselves as people with not even a semblance of even a rudimentary understanding of basic scientific knowledge. Stick to what you're good at, saying nothing with as many words as possible. I will make it my only goal on this forum to turn you red.maybe in some cases.
but where is the evidence for randomness? if anything we are faced with a lack of evidence which is how we got to the "random" explanation in the first place. "well we havent seen a clear pattern yet as to why it happens like this so it must be random." cmon sun thats not evidence.
in this specific discussion the theory about what drives the functions of genetic mutations has been agreed upon as a mystery, but this theory of "randomness" has all but been accepted as fact. just look at all the people in this thread alone rushing to defend it as if it were a fact.
theories are theories and facts are facts. this whole "it's such a strong theory we believe it to be fact, so we call it fact in place of theory" is completely illogical. if anything make up another word or phrase to convey the meaning youre looking for, but dont take a word with a clear linear meaning like "fact" and say its implies a counterintuitive definition like "highly probable theory."
Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
The inferred and genetic evidence for randomness is that there is no clear pattern or progression to the process of mutation or evolution. If it was planned, where's the sense behind it? The planning? Even moreso, where's the evidence for a planning agent causing mutations. It's more sensical to assume that the type, source, and effect of mutations is random than planned because there is absolutely no body of evidence that proves otherwise. And most of all THERE IS NO DETECTABLE MECHANISM FOR THAT CONCLUSION.
And no, there is no agreed upon anything. We have discussed sources of genetic mutation, the process of how mutations emerge as phenotypes, and how mutations work in an environment and how they persist. You just DONT fukkING GET IT.
I can't believe you have the fukking gall to call scientific theory illogical when you believe in all sorts of hilarious metaphysical bullshyt like sex magic.
There are some people that just can't be helped with how dumb they are, and you might be one of those guys. Just don't shyt up these topics in the future waddling in confusion, because you don't wanna be pulled out of it.
And no, there is no agreed upon anything. We have discussed sources of genetic mutation, the process of how mutations emerge as phenotypes, and how mutations work in an environment and how they persist. You just DONT fukkING GET IT.
I can't believe you have the fukking gall to call scientific theory illogical when you believe in all sorts of hilarious metaphysical bullshyt like sex magic.
There are some people that just can't be helped with how dumb they are, and you might be one of those guys. Just don't shyt up these topics in the future waddling in confusion, because you don't wanna be pulled out of it.
at the end of the day no one can say with 100% certainty WHY mutations appear and function as they do. but somehow you all have accepted the notion that there is no "why" to discover, and that all mutations are completely random.
not much else to say
not much else to say
at the end of the day no one can say with 100% certainty WHY mutations appear and function as they do. but somehow you all have accepted the notion that there is no "why" to discover, and that all mutations are completely random.
not much else to say
No, by "random" what we mean here is not caused by an intelligence. There is nothing intelligent about the vast majority of mutations. Judging by how they work, it is easy to see them as failed attempts to reproduce DNA or reactions to other chemical processes like irradiation.
at the end of the day no one can say with 100% certainty WHY mutations appear and function as they do. but somehow you all have accepted the notion that there is no "why" to discover, and that all mutations are completely random.
not much else to say
why? why stillborns? why downs syndrome? why haemophilia?
shyt happens, that's "why". it a messy biological system. sometimes shyt don't go right
OneManGang
Veteran
Leyet you need to Google central dogma. All drugs are made with this in mind. It also clearly lays out everything from start (DNA) to finish (protein). Every cell in your body creates these proteins from DNA. If that DNA region is altered, the protein code changes and you have a new protein. Mutations ultimately affect protein synthesis in that "normal" protein expression is replaced by the new protein. Simplify it and imagine now how different proteins could alter an organism in some way.
The randomness of mutation also simply means that it can happen at any time, any region of the DNA molecule (which is 2 meters long uncoiled in humans) at any of our billion or so base pairs. Thats all it
means. There isn't any mathematical equation to calculate where mutation will occur. It would be like finding a penny dropped into the Pacific Ocean.
Lastly, keep in mind the only mutations that can be passed on to offspring occur in the sex cells. Who cares if you stepped into a nuclear reactor and grew 6 fingers. As long as your balls were protected your child will be fine.
The randomness of mutation also simply means that it can happen at any time, any region of the DNA molecule (which is 2 meters long uncoiled in humans) at any of our billion or so base pairs. Thats all it
means. There isn't any mathematical equation to calculate where mutation will occur. It would be like finding a penny dropped into the Pacific Ocean.
Lastly, keep in mind the only mutations that can be passed on to offspring occur in the sex cells. Who cares if you stepped into a nuclear reactor and grew 6 fingers. As long as your balls were protected your child will be fine.