Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:59 am

Today, if the bearded gent were still alive, he'd be 196. And I'm sure he'd be waving his cane at us and saying, "You young whippersnappers, in my day we didn't have any o' that fancy 'Punctuated Equilibria' garbage. We had nothing but 'Descent with Modification' and dagnabbit, we liked it!"

So here's to you, Mr. Darwin, and all others in the field of biology who've followed in your footsteps...

Tha_Pig · Post by **Tha_Pig** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:36 am

To Charles Darwin!

Still misunderstood and persecuted by the ignorant all over the world. Even when science has already proved him right without doubt. Our DNA is about 80 percent monkey!

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:59 am

My girlfriend and I will be celebrating his birthday a day late through the production of slightly-altered, perhaps better suited to survive, offspring.

Just kidding.

We'll just be having sex.

AlienOmega · Post by **AlienOmega** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:25 pm

Huzzah! Just in time for the evolution flame war on FARK.com!

Jackalope · Post by **Jackalope** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:39 am

Yeah. I remembered to play MC Hawking's "Fuck the Creationists" a couple times in honor of the day.

RantinAn · Post by **RantinAn** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:54 am

Tha_Pig wrote:To Charles Darwin!

Still misunderstood and persecuted by the ignorant all over the world. Even when science has already proved him right without doubt. Our DNA is about 80 percent monkey!

Fucking hell. *cocks both barrells and winds up for rant*
Scientists have not proved SHIT! Evolutionists who harp on about evolutionary proofs are as bad if not fucking worse than creationists since they obviously dont understand the scientific language they are attempting to use.

Simple fact #1 evidence /= proof.
A scientific proof is when you can experimentaly get a predicted result. For example E=MC^2 is proven by the fact that the yeild on an atom bomb can be calculated with about 99% accuracy -/+ 10%. There is no experimental proof of evolution, just alot of evidence.

TO break it down for you:

Evolution
Preposition = things change into other things

Theory = here is a crapload of evidence in support of peoposition

Proof = We can get things to change into exactly the thing we want them to change into with a 75% success rate.

DO NOT USE THE WORDS PROVED AND EVOLUTION IN THE SAME FUCKING SENTENCE UNTIL SOMEONE DOES!
The evidence that there is a 94% genetic match between a chimpanzee and a human doesent meen diddly for a proof unles you can understand the exact why of difference in that 4% AND can use that understanding to stimulate that 4% change.

Evolution is a theory., It is a good theory. The evidence is undesputable, and the word UNDESPUTABLE is the one you should be using you ignorant asshats. But we have no evolutionary proof. The closest we've come so fat is 50% of the time for fruit flies. Do some fuckin reading. Understand scientific language. Or get flamed.
Simple fucking choice.

Sorry to single you out pig but this is one of my pet fucking peeves. If you want to be scientific about something, be fucking scientific. Otherwise youre just another fucking moronic evolutionist. Which is the same as a moronic creationist. Ie you believe this is true. YOu have documentation telling you it is true. But you know in reality jack shit about it.

P.S.

Dont tell me to read Gould, Stephen or John. Dont tell me to read Darwin. Dont tell me to read Hawkings. I have. They ALL agree with me. Evolution is an undesputable scientific theory. But it has no experimental proof!

JaronK · Post by **JaronK** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:08 am

Remember kids, evolution is just a theory.

In other news, so's gravity.

We can look at all the evidence and say "you know, every piece of evidence we've seen points squarly in one direction. We've never recieved any real counterexample, nor found any theory that came close to fitting the evidence. So I'm going to have to say this seems to be right.

But since we can't prove that one day, gravity will just stop working, or that gravity isn't actually the telekenetic effect of a single magical sea slug on the bottom of the ocean, it's still just a theory.

Like evolution, that way.

JaronK

Jackalope · Post by **Jackalope** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:12 am

Careful where you point that thing. From the Talk Origins Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution FAq:

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

You're right that it's not a mathmatical or logical proof. It's not even a proof by the standards of the hard sciences. However, evolution is both a theory (why it happens) and a fact (it's been observed occuring). So shouting at someone because they use the word "proved" is probably not the correct response.

JaronK · Post by **JaronK** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:16 am

Well, it sort of is. People say "it's proved" and then some creationist drives by and says "well no, it's not. It's just a theory. It hasn't been proved" and every once in a while someone falls for that and says "oh, it's not proved? Well, I guess it's just a theory."

So I feel it's important to be clear on the fact that A) it can't be proved but that B) all evidence points towards it and C) we can see it in action (ever heard of anti-biotic resistant infections? Wanna guess where that bacteria developed a resistance to penicillin?).

JaronK

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:10 am

Suffice to say, there is substantially more evidence supporting evolution than there is supporting Genesis.

Tha_Pig · Post by **Tha_Pig** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:24 am

RantinAn:
I made a short post that wasn

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 7:01 am

True to your name, Rantin' Ann. The nice folks over at talkorigins.org have prepared a superb FAQ that addresses everything you've said, most of what you were thinking and didn't put down and a whole lot more besides.

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:34 am

Erm, happy birthday Darwin...

And I know what everyone's saying here.... it's just difficult for everyone to talk about a scientific thing with only scientific terminology... I think this is just a bit out of hand, but doesn't need to be.

~Sara

WhatMeWorry? · Post by **WhatMeWorry?** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:00 pm

jackalope wrote:Yeah. I remembered to play MC Hawking's "Fuck the Creationists" a couple times in honor of the day.

Is this joke or real?

Curiosity now piqued...

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:00 pm

ASS SEX MAKES BABY DARWIN CRY!

I dunno; it just came to me. Maybe because ass sex has no apparent evolutionary value. Or does it? A man who has a passion for ass sex and a woman who has a passion for ass sex get together and have a baby - will the baby inherit the passion for ass sex? That's something Stephen Jay Gould never mentioned.

I wholeheartedly recommend SJG's essay 'Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples' in the book Bully for Brontosaurus to everyone here.

NOTE: I'm making jokes. I don't want to be flamed by the ass sex crowd, the Darwinist crowd, or the Jack Chick crowd. Any offense these groups take from my post is entirely in their own head. Thank you.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:10 pm

MC Hawking is quite real and HILARIOUS!

Annie... Jesus Fuck. I never thought you had any troll in you till now. You've got a lot.. and I mean a LOT of pennance to do for that little "rant" of yours. Seriously.

That little bit about fusion weapon yields.. you know E=MC^2 is part of the special THEORY of realitivity don't you? Additionally, there is so much more that goes in to yield calcuations that the energy/mass coversion calculation is just one of many many many tiny pieces that make up the whole.

So. Your pennance. Read talkorigins.org
Write an essay to be posted in this thread as to why the argument "The human eye is perfect, so it must have been created by a superior being." is incorrect, with special attention to how that statement could be applied to the squid with a higher degree of accuracy than to humans.

Fire Storm · Post by **Fire Storm** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:41 pm

kingofthemorlocks wrote:A man who has a passion for ass sex and a woman who has a passion for ass sex get together and have a baby - will the baby inherit the passion for ass sex?

Speaking of which...

Any luck on that front so far? Grab those buns and start kissing that soft milky flesh! Make her feel special, like those are the best pair of buns in the world! The softness... the way they look in pants (or panties, or shorts)...

*mmm*

...

Oh great. Make me want it more now. DAMN YOU, YOU DAMN DIRTY MIND! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:49 pm

I miss my bitch. And his ass.

~Sara

RantinAn · Post by **RantinAn** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:08 pm

Not apologising. Not doing pennance. Want to know my beef?

Try dealing with the fundie christians I have. try dealing with people who dont understand the scientific method. Try dealing with a school system that teaches evolution as history instead of science. Try putting up with seing realistic and usefull science get it's funding rejected for yet another "lets teach chimps in the name of evolution by lame ass behavourilists with no fucking ethics"

I am a scientist. When i hear people bandying about fuck the creationists it jsut irritates me. 90% of the scientists i know say the creationisim quesiton is open. They are more interested in the hard science as am I. I dont realy care for the humour. In the last few years thanks to dubbay, most ot the litrature from both sides is "fuck the other side". It's not funny any more. It's scream inducing. And it is fucking the people who want to do hard science.

Now as for the photoreceptors of squids... not goign to argue their superiority to the human eye. Lots of mariene animals have specilized sences that kick humans asses. In fact for sensory networks, you cant go past the bioelectric detection field built into the cartledge and skin of most sharks. Now that is some freaky freaky impressive shite.

No apologies from me tho. I am not going to play semantic or lingusitic games. If you want to talk evolution talk science. there is no excuse for doing otherwise.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:59 pm

RantinAn wrote:I am not going to play semantic or lingusitic games.

But they're so much fun! And given the fact that we aren't one giant mind, and have to rely on linguistics to communicate, the "games" are inevitable. (Granted, they tend to be exacerbated by the political/ideological nature of certain topics; although nothing, but nothing, matches the level of doublespeak you find in political speeches and virtually any IP contract.)

As for "Theory" vs. "Law", it has been described to me as thus:

A "Law" is an equation/set of equations/set of rules/etc. that describes what happens (or, more specifically, what is observed), and based on that, to the extent that the law is defined and conditions are within the boundries of the law, predict what will happen in the future.

A "Theory" is an explenation of why the law is the way it is.

"Laws," once discovered, are more or less fixed, for a given set of conditions (taking into account the precision of the instruments used to measure with). Any apparent violation is usually due to observations outside of those conditions. (Perennial example, post Einstein: Newton's Laws, are valid (within precision of current instruments) at low (<~.01 c, maybe more) velocities, but fall apart at high velocities. Likewise when in the presence of high gravity fields. When Einstein discovered Special Relativity, it did not invalidate Newton's Laws, it only clarified them (or rather, they simplify into Newton's Laws when at low velocities.))

"Theories," the explanations of why things do what they do, are never certain; taking them as articles of faith is just as wrongheaded as you said. Their only real use is to predict new laws to discover by experimentation.

However, the two words are (possibly hopelessly) intermixed in the general public's mind. (You have to remember, not everyone is a scientist; expecting them to be, and to use the terminology 100% correctly every time, is going to lead to disappointment.) There is a Law of Evolution; we have observed it (antibiotic-resistant bacteria, anyone?). Likewise, Relativity (Special) is a law; it describes what is observed at high speed and in high gravity fields. General Relativity (space-time) is a Theory used to describe why Special Relativity does what it does.