Scientists Successfully Teach Monkey Theory of Evolution

noon

Pro
Joined
Oct 19, 2013
Messages
804
Reputation
120
Daps
719
I see where you're coming from however I think that's more of an argument that a theist would use. Someone had to be there to throw that ball. If you on the other hand, say that a ball one day just showed up on a blade of grass on its own and nothing outside of the ball or the grass exists...that's how I see evolution.

The golf ball analogy deals with your issue with probability. You're saying it's a one a gazillion chance of life developing, well one in a gazillion is still a chance. No matter how unlikely. By talking about who swung the golf ball you're taking it off in a tangent without worrying about your original problem.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
I like how all religious people believe in everything in science without a moment of hesitation EXCEPT for the things that conflict directly with their religion.

When they use their cell phones for example, they won't dare question the Circuit Theory that serves as the basis for the electronic devices. They won't dare question the Theory of Gravity that explains the exact precise movement, orbit and location of the communication satellites that allow them to send data through that phone. They wont dare question Einstein's Special and Relativity theories that take into account time disparity that allows GPS and other satellites to work properly.

All theories but those theories are fine.

But theory of Evolution? That's just a theory you see? One that also happens to conflict with their book for now. In 100 years, they will be twisting their scripture to tell us that their holy book predicted evolution!
 

GoddamnyamanProf

Countdown to Armageddon
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
35,794
Reputation
975
Daps
106,199
I like how all religious people believe in everything in science without a moment of hesitation EXCEPT for the things that conflict directly with their religion.

When they use their cell phones for example, they won't dare question the Circuit Theory that serves as the basis for the electronic devices. They won't dare question the Theory of Gravity that explains the exact precise movement, orbit and location of the communication satellites that allow them to send data through that phone. They wont dare question Einstein's Special and Relativity theories that take into account time disparity that allows GPS and other satellites to work properly.

All theories but those theories are fine.

But theory of Evolution? That's just a theory you see? One that also happens to conflict with their book for now. In 100 years, they will be twisting their scripture to tell us that their holy book predicted evolution!
Yeah but there'll be a lot less of them. Then less. Until they're irrelevant.
 

Ms.CuriousCat

All Star
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
4,117
Reputation
1,040
Daps
8,641
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE CONTRADICTION HERE, BROTHER? "TWO SECONDS, VOILA!" MAKES SENSE, DUDE! "A BILLION YEARS, VOILA!" IS THE SILLIEST THING I'VE READ TODAY, MEAN GENE!

lol yes but you believe that if you give it enough time some amazing living thing can just crop up out of nowhere? That seems like voila to me



The golf ball analogy deals with your issue with probability. You're saying it's a one a gazillion chance of life developing, well one in a gazillion is still a chance. No matter how unlikely. By talking about who swung the golf ball you're taking it off in a tangent without worrying about your original problem.

I don't think it's the same thing. I suppose if you say the golf ball is like the smoke that existed in the universe and the grass is what, the organisms and everything we have on earth? Then you could argue that that smoke was on a trajectory and no matter how small the possibility it was going to land on a blade of grass (i.e. fully evolved intelligent life forms) and keep moving forward to a place you don't know of yet.

But then I'd have to ask myself where did the smoke come from? (like the ball being hit by a human, the smoke had an origin that set it into motion). Something can't come from nothing.

I'm not a simpleton who doesn't understand science neither am I a conformist, brainwashed and afraid of turning away from societal norms. Ultimately we owe it to ourselves to seek answers to the questions we ask ourselves.
 

Berniewood Hogan

IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
17,983
Reputation
6,880
Daps
88,330
Reppin
nWg

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,063
Reputation
8,154
Daps
122,284
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Hollywood Hogan said:
Macroevolution has never been observed - EvoWiki

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

YOUR ASININE RETORT ABOUT SEMANTICS IS SUCH AN INEVITABILITY TO ME THAT I'M BETTING ALL MY COLI CASH ON IT, BROTHER!

:sas1:

Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Time-scales are the (major) difference between the two processes which is why I stated one had been observed/tested/reproduced and the other had not.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

CA220: Evolution replicable

Sit down like when Ric Flair bodied you, and have faith in Scientism, brother. YOUR semantics don't work on me......

Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns.

Your willingness to cast aspersions without regard to the actual argument or asking for clarification is telling.

coelacanth_501_600x450.jpg



:sas2:
 
Last edited:
Top