Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Ben....IMO it's not a flawed question. It's a fair question. I use it all the time with young people to challenge their thinking.The problem is the human brain can't comprehend "nothing." It's like trying to define infinity, what is the answer to one divided by zero.? It's also hard for the layman to understand at first when you tell them they have never seen a star where it really is, only where it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Ben....IMO it's not a flawed question. It's a fair question. I use it all the time with young people to challenge their thinking.The problem is the human brain can't comprehend "nothing." It's like trying to define infinity, what is the answer to one divided by zero.? It's also hard for the layman to understand at first when you tell them they have never seen a star where it really is, only where it was. Heh. Even if you're using it as a rhetorical question to challenge younger folks to expand their thinking, it's still a flawed question because of its faulty premise. It's like asking them to find the corner of a sphere. The universe isn't expanding into anything. It's just, well, expanding. It's not a satisfiying answer, but them's the breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 And you make my point because you can't fathom "nothing." Your answer that "it's just, well, expanding" is a way we humans try to explain something we can't comprehend But don't feel bad........only the Master Creator can answer such questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 And you make my point because you can't fathom "nothing." Your answer that "it's just, well, expanding" is a way we humans try to explain something we can't comprehend Hey, I didn't say the question didn't have value rhetorically, but I understand the concept of "nothing" just fine, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Good. The best concept of "nothing" is what's inside the cranium of some posters here (not you). Sorry couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Good. The best concept of "nothing" is what's inside the cranium of some posters here (not you). Sorry couldn't resist Boo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Well you have to admit this thread has literally gone from GW to nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Well you have to admit this thread has literally gone from GW to nothing I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 That's what I've been trying to tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 That's what I've been trying to tell you I've already told you: I understand nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Polluted water, soil, and air is bad! Clean water, soil, and air is good. Cutting down the rainforest is bad! Breathing lots of O2 is good. Study over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Polluted water, soil, and air is bad! Clean water, soil, and air is good. Cutting down the rainforest is bad! Breathing lots of O2 is good. Study over. Breathing too much oxygen can be bad. /pedantics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,864 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Not going to quote it, because it was insanely long.... But giving out grades, you really give evolution an A+... fo realz? Being generous, considering the tons of changes it has went through.... or maybe I'm thrown off since this was started by talking about darwin. But the original thoughts of evolution have went through so many changes it would be crazy to give darwin an A+ lol. also, bigbens, let's take "god of the gaps" out of the equation. With the constant changes to hypothesis explaining our species rapid evolution, what are the chances that perhaps an outside outside force acted on it(considering the "infinite stars, infinite space, infinite possibilities" talk)? also, don't bother citing the different studies of "why we evolved so awesomely" I've read a ton, most add on or are contradictory to one another and it's obvious we don't have a concrete answer yet... I'm simply looking for your individual opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Not going to quote it, because it was insanely long.... But giving out grades, you really give evolution an A+... fo realz? Being generous, considering the tons of changes it has went through.... or maybe I'm thrown off since this was started by talking about darwin. But the original thoughts of evolution have went through so many changes it would be crazy to give darwin an A+ lol. The Theory of Evolution has withstood the test of time remarkably well. Nothing has popped up that contradicts the Theory in any way. Since it was thought up, the evidence confirming the Theory has only gotten stronger. There are some gaps and a few relatively minor disagreements in the field, but evidence contradicting the Theory pretty much does not exist. Therefore A+. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. And neither has anyone else. also, bigbens, let's take "god of the gaps" out of the equation. With the constant changes to hypothesis explaining our species rapid evolution, what are the chances that perhaps an outside outside force acted on it(considering the "infinite stars, infinite space, infinite possibilities" talk)? also, don't bother citing the different studies of "why we evolved so awesomely" I've read a ton, most add on or are contradictory to one another and it's obvious we don't have a concrete answer yet... I'm simply looking for your individual opinion I haven't said we evolved awesomely. In fact, there are several physiological flaws where other evolutionary paths have ended up being better. Take, for instance, the eye. Our eye is imperfect. Compare it to an octupus or squid eye. The octopus's eye is a much more logically 'designed' eye, which has no blind spot due to the optic nerve fitting over the edges of the retina rather than being plugged into it. Let me quote Shermer to help drive the point home: The configuration of the retina is in three layers, with the light-sensitive rods and cones at the bottom, facing away from the light, and underneath a layer of bipolar, horizonal, and amacrine cells, themselves underneath a layer of ganglion cells that help carry the signal from the eye to the brain. And this entire structure sits beneath a layer of blood vessels. For optimal vision why would an intelligent designer have built an eye backwards and upside down? Because an intelligent designer did not build the eye from scratch. Natural selection built the eye from simple to complex using whatever materials were available, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism. Would you mind elaborating on the question a bit more? What changes in the hypothesis are you referring to? ETA: Think I got it now. Nothing in our evolution requires any sort of "outside force" explanation to make sense. It fits within the framework of Darwin's natural selection to a T. I would rate the chances as "no outside force necessary (assuming you're referring to an intelligent designer or guide to our evolutionary path) whatsoever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 ... I'm simply looking for your individual opinion Ben and Homer already knows this but this is all I ask for on these subjects. I don't always agree with their opinions (mostly due to ignorance or stubbornness ) but a few on this board have no problem giving their opinion and their opinions are backed up with abundant diligence into the subject. The information that I don't agree with or understand is stored for future reference just in case my mental faculties mature or evolve. Simple is as simple does for me... I can see gravity and test it. I can see light and test it. (recently got insanely interested in the science of manipulating the speed of light) I can see and test adaptation and mutation. Life from rocks... very skeptical with given hypotheses something from nothing... very skeptical with given hypotheses Heck, the mule and the hinny took a while for me to wrap my chromosomes around. The good news is I did figure it out and not once did I have "sexual relations" with any of the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 ...Life from rocks... very skeptical with given hypotheses something from nothing... very skeptical with given hypotheses... Well, the first one is a bit of a strawman. We do know that it's quite possible for organic molecules to form naturally. What might have kicked them into coalescing into a form that could be considered "life" is a hard question to answer, though. The second is definitely one for which I have no solid answer. Anything I do come up with will almost assuredly be prone to God-of-the-gaps issues and/or infinite regress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 ...Life from rocks... very skeptical with given hypotheses something from nothing... very skeptical with given hypotheses... Well, the first one is a bit of a strawman. We do know that it's quite possible for organic molecules to form naturally. What might have kicked them into coalescing into a form that could be considered "life" is a hard question to answer, though. I have went and done more digging into "Miller-Urey" and other like experiments and they just provide me with more questions than answers. For example: The amount of "toxic" things that are created in these tests is startling. That's another subject for another day. Thanks again for always keeping a civil discussion B-ben and sharing your knowledge and opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,864 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I probably could have worded it a lot better, was posting right before bed lol. Just a few million years ago we were middle of the pack in the food chain, today we are by far the most dominant life form on the planet.... In just a couple million years we have underwent very drastic changes. Looking at other organisms, the evolutionary steps they have taken compared to our own is minute. Looking at a person today, our ancestors 1 million years ago, our ancestors 2 million years ago, there's drastic changes each time. Look at a mosquito today, 10 million years ago, 20 million years ago. not a lot of change physically or in their place in the food chain. Same with most animals, they evolve just enough to not become extinct. What I was looking for your opinion on is those above few statements, it's been hypothesized that our climate, societal attitude, diet, warlike nature, even natural disasters in our area is what caused our evolution to suddenly be fast tracked. Just wondering what your thoughts on it are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 ...Life from rocks... very skeptical with given hypotheses something from nothing... very skeptical with given hypotheses... Well, the first one is a bit of a strawman. We do know that it's quite possible for organic molecules to form naturally. What might have kicked them into coalescing into a form that could be considered "life" is a hard question to answer, though. I have went and done more digging into "Miller-Urey" and other like experiments and they just provide me with more questions than answers. For example: The amount of "toxic" things that are created in these tests is startling. That's another subject for another day. Thanks again for always keeping a civil discussion B-ben and sharing your knowledge and opinions. It can be a subject for today, too. Toxic isn't a universal concept. One of the earliest extinction events in earth's history was caused by oxygen. Cyanobacteria, just like plants do today, produce oxygen as a waste product. It wasn't until aerobic organisms evolved that a balance was reached. What we consider poisonous could have been relatively benign to the earliest organism. Likewise, these conversations are fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 OK. I'm back. Before I dive into this, let me brag on my on kids a little bit. Sadie almost swept every event she competed in today. Won the shotput, 100 meter and long jump. Came in second by less than a foot on the 50 meter. Dag blasted photo finish! Jillian won the 100 meter, came in second on the long jump and 50 meter and finished 4th out of 18 on the shotput. It was a good day. Just a few million years ago we were middle of the pack in the food chain, today we are by far the most dominant life form on the planet.... In just a couple million years we have underwent very drastic changes. Looking at other organisms, the evolutionary steps they have taken compared to our own is minute. Oh, drastic changes are not at all unique to us. There are many examples. A good example. In roughly 40,000 years, we have managed to turn this: into this: using only selective breeding techniques. And that's not even considering bacteria, earth's simplest and most successful organism, where antibiotic resistance gives us a great example of extremely fast adaptation in action. For a fine example of adaptation, natural selection and evolution in action, I'd recommend looking up the Lenski study I recommended to aubfaninga last night. Looking at a person today, our ancestors 1 million years ago, our ancestors 2 million years ago, there's drastic changes each time. Look at a mosquito today, 10 million years ago, 20 million years ago. not a lot of change physically or in their place in the food chain. Same with most animals, they evolve just enough to not become extinct. I think you might have some misconceptions about evolution. It's not really necessary for mosquitos to evolve because they don't need to. Mosquitos are still much the same as they were 50 million years ago because they are nearly perfectly adapted to their ecological niche. There are untold billions of the critters alive today, thriving like they have for eons. So it's not a very good comparison. Evolution isn't really goal oriented. It's a very random hit-or-miss process. If a mutation appears in an individual that is advantageous, then that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass on that trait. It's not about evolving to avoid extinction. It's about lucking up and being likely to survive and reproduce. What I was looking for your opinion on is those above few statements, it's been hypothesized that our climate, societal attitude, diet, warlike nature, even natural disasters in our area is what caused our evolution to suddenly be fast tracked. Just wondering what your thoughts on it are. There's no question that culture, diet and climate has played a role. As for the "changes in the hyposthesis," I would equate to a simple math problem: We know the answer is 10. We're just trying to figure out if the problem was 5+5 or 6+4. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 OK. I'm back. Before I dive into this, let me brag on my on kids a little bit. Sadie almost swept every event she competed in today. Won the shotput, 100 meter and long jump. Came in second by less than a foot on the 50 meter. Dag blasted photo finish! Jillian won the 100 meter, came in second on the long jump and 50 meter and finished 4th out of 18 on the shotput. It was a good day. Sounds like a great day!!! Must be the socks. Man, I miss the sports with my older children and can't wait for my twins in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Sounds like a great day!!! Must be the socks. Man, I miss the sports with my older children and can't wait for my twins in a few years. Yep, definitely the socks. I'm glad I got them into a sport besides dance, because let's face it, I'm a dude and not exactly big on things I know nothing about. Track, though. Oof. It took us a while to match up the events they'd be good at. Sadie was in tears after the 400 at the first meet. Thankfully, she won the 100 later that day. Turns out she's good, really good, at the 50-200 meter shorter stuff. Winning shotput and long jump today was icing on the cake. Literally, as she's 8 today. Be prepared for tears in track. Kids that finish toward the back of the pack don't generally take it well. Now I just need a boy for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURex 1,983 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Well, back to the publication by Duke researchers that started this thread, the Duke researchers have come out and stated flat out that Limbaugh and all the others who think their article falls into the skeptic/denier category are full of sh*t. The researchers say that, quite the contrary, their research provides further evidence of human contribution to global warming and that those morons are just too stupid to understand what the research article says. [O]ur study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation. As for all the intervening pages here discussing evolution, well, that's a different issue altogether. But I do find it pretty hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 ...As for all the intervening pages here discussing evolution, well, that's a different issue altogether. But I do find it pretty hilarious. Hey, what's one science denialist trope against another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Well, back to the publication by Duke researchers that started this thread, the Duke researchers have come out and stated flat out that Limbaugh and all the others who think their article falls into the skeptic/denier category are full of sh*t. The researchers say that, quite the contrary, their research provides further evidence of human contribution to global warming and that those morons are just too stupid to understand what the research article says. [O]ur study confirms that the warming of the past century could not have happened without human-caused increases in greenhouse gasses. This is because the warming over the past century is much larger than what could have come about due to natural variation. As for all the intervening pages here discussing evolution, well, that's a different issue altogether. But I do find it pretty hilarious. I find it depressing. (It might be hilarious if this were a Bammer site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.