What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buyâs holiday campaign.
212 Comments
- ilbbaicl, on 06/17/2008, -9/+54Ape
- ASSASSYN360, on 06/17/2008, -5/+44I'm a meat Popsicle.
- TheSavant, on 06/17/2008, -6/+27"And now, as surely as night follows day, I will be dugg down, for if there is one thing some Diggers can't stand, it's the notion that God is or might be real..."
Nope, that isn't what I can't stand. What I can't stand is people like you trying to get me to buy into your superstitious nonsense. What I can't stand is religious doctrine ending up in my government and laws. What I can't stand is people like you telling me all about your superstitious nonsense all the time. If I wanted to know about it, I would ask. If I wanted people knocking on my door in the morning to tell about fairly land, I would ask. I don't go around, out of the blue, telling people my beliefs. You can have your bedtime stories, but STOP bothering me with them. - CaptMonkey, on 06/17/2008, -2/+22No, actually we're apes. We're descended from a common ancestor of chimps and gorillas and monkeys and so on (that's not to mention sharing common ancestors with things like tarantulas and oak trees too if you go farther back).
The scientific definition of "ape" is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea, which ***** sapiens fall within.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape - nitsuj, on 06/17/2008, -0/+19"Mathematically, the evolutionary theory is a dead duck."
Evidence please.
"But I already covered this topic, so far not a single evolutionist was able to prove me wrong."
No you haven't. I've yet to see you put forward any compelling evidence whatsoever.
The rest of your quoted post beggars belief.
Domestication of animals via man-made selection throughout history is well documented and researched. It's genetically tracable and applies also to agricultural crops and other plant produce.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318084.000 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domesti ...
And I quote: "Carles Vilà of UCLA,[5], who has conducted the most extensive study to date, has shown that DNA evidence has ruled out any ancestor canine species except the wolf."
In short, Friedman is an untrustworthy quack and you should get better sources. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -0/+17Friedman is a physicist, not a population geneticist or an evolutionary biologist. Further, his book constantly confuses abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution, two separate fields - his credibility on the subject is highly suspect.
- BaudiIROCZ, on 06/17/2008, -0/+16The irony of being corrected on the issue of descent from someone by the name of CaptMonkey FTW.
Thanks - o0joshua0o, on 06/17/2008, -0/+15This is not a thorough analysis, so I'll just highlight a few of the most embarrassing errors in your argument.
A wolf can, in fact, be kept as a pet. I know this firsthand.
Not all of our ancestors kept sheep (ergo, no "financial ruin")
There are several ways to keep a goose from flying away: keep it in a cage, tie it down, clip its wings, etc.
A "primitive" man once calculated the circumference of the earth with a small degree of error. - MidnightRealism, on 06/17/2008, -1/+15"Did man-made selection really occur? For example, evolutionists believe that the dog is the domesticated wolf."
Likely this was done by getting cubs and raising them. Don't breed the ones that are aggressive in adulthood. Carry this on for a while and you've got a domesticated animal. I don't think it's possible to find any really good evidence against this. As for your point about bears...seriously? Grizzlies were considered terrifying as recently as the 1800s, and smaller, less aggressive species would still be incredibly dangerous to try to tangle with in times prior to recorded history.
"There is one minor problem with this theory, however: our man did not have equipment designed to measure the height and speed of a flight! No wonder he was called “primitive.” Besides, in order to take measure¬ments he would have to release the birds from captivity. But once they are free, they are gone, so the evolutionists’ idea of domestication of the wild geese is gone with them."
MY STATEMENT HERE IS CONJECTURE! Primitive man had rope, his eyeballs, and the concept of time. Leash 'em, let 'em fly out a ways, gauge how far they're getting, and repeat. Science is science, even when it's primitive and not well-understood. - johnnysaucepn, on 06/17/2008, -7/+21God is a creation of Man, an abstract being derived from physical uncertainty - a spirit that is the REAL you, and is fundamentally a psychological construct.
'A famous quote says "There is nothing we can do to make God love us more. There is nothing we can do to make God love us less".' But apparently there's plenty we can do that makes Him want to torture us for all eternity. - johnnysaucepn, on 06/17/2008, -1/+15That truly has nothing to do with domestication, much less evolution.
The difference between wolves and bears are a) wolves are smart, social animals that are used to fitting into a hierarchy and co-operating, bears are not, and b) wolves are smaller and more capable of living off the scraps of 'civilization', much like urban foxes do today.
The most likely scenario is not of capturing the wolf and taming it by force, but that the wolf itself became less dependent on hunting skills for survival as it lived parasitically off us and our domesticated herds. The more aggressive a wolf is, the more likely it is to get hunted down by humans. A tendency towards caution and scavenging rather than hunting in the wild provides a new niche to grow into.
In other words, the driving force is natural selection first, artificial breeding programs come later.
As for geese, the fastest, highest-flying birds are the least likely to be caught or held onto. Like the wolf, the geese that learn to live off humans in harsh conditions will develop into a different niche from the ones that stay living wild. Nobody needs to take measurements of anything - either the geese stay or take their chances with the environment. - SpinningHead, on 06/17/2008, -0/+14Quite the straw man you set up there. "Was a “primi¬tive man” unwise enough to try to domesticate a wolf at the expense of his flock of sheep?"
Nobody would suggest that domestication of wolves occurred AFTER we had domesticated sheep and were living as herders or farmers. This would have occurred over long periods of time in which hunting societies would have followed packs of wolves to good hunting grounds. As tool technology developed, we would have been able to bring down larger game than the wolves and could have shared the scraps.
Of course, maybe the flying spaghetti monster took the rib of a wolf and made a poodle. - Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -0/+13"Mathematically, the evolutionary theory is a dead duck. But I already covered this topic, so far not a single evolutionist was able to prove me wrong."
Please reference the "coverage" that you have provided in previous discussions. Merely asserting that you have not been "proven wrong" is not a rational substantiation of your claims. - TheCatsPants, on 06/17/2008, -5/+18"for if there is one thing some Diggers can't stand, it's the notion that God is or might be real.."
No, what irritates us is people spouting unsubstantiated claims about what God is and what God wants, trying to convert us to their own narrow world-view. - nitsuj, on 06/17/2008, -4/+16"Man is a creation of God,"
God(s) is a creation of man.
"a physical being with a spirit"
Please provide evidence for a 'spirit'.
"Sin distances us from God."
Sin is a man-made concept mostly linked with Abrahamic religions that is used to exert behavioral control through guilt.
"We're not apes,"
Yes, we absolutely are apes. There is no debate on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
"He is not there to condemn you, he loves you as you are, warts and all, right now."
In that case he/she/it won't mind if I continue not believing in him/she/it due to complete lack of evidence.
"for if there is one thing some Diggers can't stand, it's the notion that God is or might be real..."
Yeah, just like Zeus, Leprechauns and Santa Claus might be real. Such a worry.
"Anyway, God's there waiting for you when you want him. http://www.alpha.org"
Oh what happy-clappy deluded fun. Thanks, but no thanks. - gordonj, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11"The following passages from the book show that domestication of wild animals never occured."
And where in the passages following that statement is the cold hard evidence that any of the conjectures made by the author are actually true?
e.g. "evolutionists believe that the dog is the domesticated wolf. But wolves are known to be wild and no one in recent history has been able to tame a wolf."
Of course wolves are known to be wild - that's why the dog is a DOMESTICATED wolf. That's the whole relevance of domestication.
Here's some pictures of some less than wild wolves, these alone dismantle your argument:
http://coloradolib.com/uploaded_images/DSCN1051-74 ...
http://skyblu.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/my-pet-w ...
http://www.iowadogtrainer.com/images/tonja_and_wol ...
"Besides, there was a much better candidate: the bear. While the bear is slower than the wolf he is still much faster than the sheep, so he could be trained to guard a flock of sheep."
Well now, let's have a little think about this shall we... which do you think would be less dangerous to domesticate, a wolf or a bear? Which would require less upkeep and food?
Where is there any evidence for any claims the author makes? Hypotheticals without evidence are not evidence other than of the stupidity and lack of critical thinking of the author.
I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post as it is too retarded for words and a waste of my time. There are plenty of (real) examples of selective breeding in domesticated animals. Go look them up. - Eezyville, on 06/17/2008, -5/+16Humans are animals. Plain and simple. If you don't believe me then read the news.
- o0joshua0o, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11Four points:
1) Apes have been around far longer than humans, so it doesn't make sense that apes could have evolved from humans.
2) There is an enormous number of fossils that support Darwin's theory.
3) Just because some apes survived in some habitats without significant genetic changes doesn't mean that all apes were able to survive in all habitats without genetic changes.
4) Darwin's theory is the foundation for all of biology. Hardly "half-assed". If you want to see something intellectually sloppy, read your original comment again. - jezsik, on 06/17/2008, -0/+10Wow, this Friedman guy wasn't very creative, was he? Did we domesticate the wolf? Yup, perhaps it was a more gentle breed of wolf that has since gone extinct. Why would someone risk his flock of sheep to domesticate the "enemy"? Simple, we created the dog long before we started herding any animal. Why canines and not ursines? Simple, canines are pack animals and dedicate themselves to the group, unlike the bears which are solitary. Has anyone domesticated a wolf? Not that I know of, but I bet it takes a long time. I do know, however, of someone who bred foxes and discovered something interesting. He consistently mated the more gentle and social foxes. After several generations he noted something interesting, the foxes were taking on the characteristics of ... wait for it ... collies.
As for geese, I doubt we bothered to analyze the birds' flight characteristics, but simply bred the less aggressive animals. It just so happened that these birds were also the lazier ones. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10"so what's you're[sic] starting point?"
Ok, first you need to learn to capitalize your sentences.
Second, learn the difference between "your" and "you're" - the question you just asked is "so what is you are starting point?"
Now, to actually answer your poorly worded question, you're talking about abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology. - TheCatsPants, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10Abiogenesis is a separate question entirely, but a very interesting field of study.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10That you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. Try looking of Foraminifera some time - in foraminiferans, we have a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil record of almost an entire PHYLUM of life, going back to the mid-Jurassic - countless billions of fossils littering the sea floor detailing exactly how all the species in the foraminifera family evolved.
- harmil, on 06/17/2008, -4/+13Big bada boom?
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by your claim. - ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10This blanket dismissal ignores the vast preponderance of evidence for the Theory of Evolution, as well as the role that selection has in your little "equation".
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9Almost no fossils? Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just ignorant of the evidence?
Here, go look up foraminifera sometime. In the fossils of foraminiferans, we have a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year fossil record of almost an entire PHYLUM of life, going back to the mid-Jurassic - countless billions of fossils littering the sea floor. - Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8"So what put everything in motion originally? Everything must have a beginning, so what began life? God, by definition, doesn't need a beginning, so he could have put life in motion."
You are appealing to the "special pleading" fallacy by invoking a universal principle and then asserting that your proposition must be correct because it is excepted from that principle without a rational justification for that exception. Note that claiming that an entity is, "by definition", exempt from the principle is not a rational justification, as you cannot create reality through defining terms as you wish. - TheCatsPants, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9Apes and humans have a common ancestor. You are not descended from your cousins, but you share a common ancestor with them. So no, apes did not evolve from humans. But humans are classified as a type of ape.
- Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9"We're not apes"
You are incorrect. Humans are apes based upon the fundamental definiton of "ape". "Apes" encompass organisms possessing a specific set of physical characteristics. Humans possess all off those physical characteristics, thus humans are, by definition, apes. - Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8Your assertion that no rebuttal has been offered is demonstrably false, and it was obviously false when you made the claim. Why have you made a claim that you could easily determine was false at the time that you made it?
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9Your misunderstanding of the scientific process aside, you're assuming the existence of an "eternity" (I assume you're referring to some mythical afterlife) without objective, empirical evidence for such. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- TheCatsPants, on 06/17/2008, -1/+8I'm sorry that your education system has let you down so badly.
- Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -1/+8"fossils? That's hilarious, it takes a lot more faith to believe in your fairy tale, than a God who told you he created everything."
Please justify your assertions. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a "fairy tale", and then show that the quantity of "faith" required for acceptance of the theory of evolution is greater than the quantity of "faith" required for accepting the existence of a deity who is claimed to have claimed to have created everything. Specify the specific deity to which you refer and explain why you are referencing that specific deity to the exclusion of all others. Also, define "faith" in context so that the term is meaningful. - bowens44, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7It's not often that you see so much nonsense in a single post!!
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9I'll tell you again, you're talking about abiogenesis, which is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution. Those are two entirely separate fields. The Theory of Evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
- covertbadger, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7He won't reference it, since on the thread in question he was made to look extremely stupid when it was pointed out that his alleged proof wasn't even concerned with evolution, it was attacking abiogenesis. As is always the case it took a long, long time for daylight to penetrate his thick head, but I think he eventually cottoned on that evolution is not abiogenesis nor dependent on it, and so has now changed the subject rather quickly.
Not that domestication of wild animals makes any more sense in context, however. - insurgente, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11Ever heard of ***** neanderthalensis? ***** erectus? ***** ergaster? Unfortunately they all died out due to natural selection, and we survived.
- nitsuj, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9The problem seems to be that you think all belief systems are equal.
If I put forward the 'belief' that the universe was created by an army of Leprachauns with Tourette's syndrome would you consider this belief equal to yours?
Also, because not one shred of evidence has been observed anywhere for supernatural being(s) it is a reasonable assumption, until shown otherwise, that the universe operates by natural physical means alone. - o0joshua0o, on 06/17/2008, -3/+10You got the formula wrong. The formula for Evolution is as follows:
Genetic mutation+Natural Selection+Sexual Selection = Evolution
The formula you're closest to is this one:
Nothing+Dogma+Indoctrination = Religion - ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -3/+10That's a question for the field of abiogenesis, a separate field from evolutionary biology. All we need for that "something changeable" is an imperfect replicator, and there are many good ideas and hypotheses about how such a replicator could have come about. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions present on pre-biotic earth could have contained the necessary building blocks for such a replicator.
- TheCatsPants, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6"The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not."
It's nice to see that everyone is a transitional form - a bit like both parents, but a bit different from both. It also makes me feel a little sad inside that another type of human species didn't survive to this age. It would be amazing to see just how similar, or different, they were. - Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8"That's a pretty flimsy thought process to base your whole eternity on"
In which statement did ApokalypseNow reference the concept of "eternity" in relation to anything else that he stated? - Technohamster, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6I hate when people confuse evolution with abiogenesis.
- Dimensio, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7"Way to use wikipedia as a source......"
Can you show that the definition given within the entry is inaccurate? - ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Don't feel sad - we are probably the descendants of all those other species. They gave rise to us.
- ApokalypseNow, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8So you're claiming that you didn't descend from anything? That would be consistent with YOUR thinking patterns, or rather, your lack thereof.
- johnnysaucepn, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7No, Something + (Change x Time) = Something Else.
- Croaton, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Before the Big Bang the four (known) dimensions of our universe did not exists. Without time as a dimension you can not have cause and effect. Your analogy with Newtons laws of motion is therefore all to simlified to even come close to be a true thought experiment of what caused the beginning of our universe.
- johnnysaucepn, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Fossils are not known for their ability to reproduce.
- BadAssFlip, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Scientific Proof and Theological Proof are completely different.
To proof that God exists, you have to take the entire bible as the truth to begin with. then you try to somehow twist your interpretation in hopes of finding proofs.
However, Scientific Proof is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. -
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 