• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

South Korea set to "revise" high school books by removing examples of evolution.

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ElFenix said:
a tale is not evidence of what is in the tale. should we admit hansel and gretel to show that houses made of gingerbread are inhabited by witches in the woods of germany?
Click to expand...

A lot (not all) of our folk tales have some kind of fact in them.



RPD said:
I think this thread has demonstrated you lack any respect or sense.
Click to expand...

I have tried to be respectful in this thread.
 
Texashiker said:
So its ok for one side to present their evidence, while the opposing party is restricted on what they can and can not enter into evidence?
Click to expand...

We don't restrict evidence, but we do look at it's source and veracity.


The theory of evolution should not be afraid of open debate and criticism.
Click to expand...
As I have already said, it is not. It just requires the debaters to have enough knowledge to actually contribute to a useful debate.

But we are not supposed to accept tales passed down through the generations as evidence?
Click to expand...

The Native Americans have also have oral tradition stories about talking animals and that the lights in the sky is hung on a giant spider's web. This reduces the veracity of the other stories. The fact is that even most of the people telling these stories believe them to be fiction.
 
Modelworks said:
Ignore the messenger and focus on the message. The fact is that scientist that try to work outside the box are ridiculed often without being given the chance to discuss their ideas simply because it isn't the consensus of the majority. Science is one of the most egocentric fields that exists.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between working outside the box and promoting total horseshit that's contradicted by vast amounts of evidence. What about physicists who don't accept relativity, or electrical engineers who disagree with Ohm's law. Should we take them seriously?
 
I caught a 20-foot blue fin tuna on the Mississippi river down by the old oak tree. Want proof? Look, there is the old oak tree! See? My story is based on fact!
 
I love how TH quote out of context only the part that he want to reply to while ignoring the rest. Any person who acts in such way tells you quite a bit about themselves.

It's OK man, still not too late to repent.

You know what scares me most? It's people like you that have the same voting powers as I do...
 
SSSnail said:
I love how TH quote out of context only the part that he want to reply to while ignoring the rest. Any person who acts in such way tells you quite a bit about themselves.

It's OK man, still not too late to repent.

You know what scares me most? It's people like you that have the same voting powers as I do...
Click to expand...

Science has made it possible for the truly dumb to voice their opinions and corrupt other dumb people with their stupidity.
 
I assume we are discussing atheistic evolution. That stated, how does one explain the first organism having the ability to take in nutrients (energy), self-reparation, expelling of waste, or have any functioning at all without any outside assistance? What is the standard explanation for this? The actual impartation of life to the first organism aside, it seems that the development of basic internal life systems would be problematic to atheistic evolutionists.
 
spittledip said:
I assume we are discussing atheistic evolution. That stated, how does one explain the first organism having the ability to take in nutrients (energy), self-reparation, expelling of waste, or have any functioning at all without any outside assistance? What is the standard explanation for this? The actual impartation of life to the first organism aside, it seems that the development of basic internal life systems would be problematic to atheistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...
Evolution does not seek to answer the question of how life began, only how it has changed in the time since.
 
This has been a most awesome thread. I’ve literally been eating popcorn reading this. I’ve enjoyed reading people calling TH a troll then right after in the same post writing up an argument as if somehow that’s going the be one that’ll convince him he’s wrong. Sadly now that it’s become “your god sucks cause little boys are being raped” it’s losing its amusement and devolving (theoretically, can’t prove it!) into just vaguer mudslinging.
 
spittledip said:
I assume we are discussing atheistic evolution. That stated, how does one explain the first organism having the ability to take in nutrients (energy), self-reparation, expelling of waste, or have any functioning at all without any outside assistance? What is the standard explanation for this? The actual impartation of life to the first organism aside, it seems that the development of basic internal life systems would be problematic to atheistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...

I thought long and hard about this, but deduced my thoughts to a single logical answer: Jesus!
 
spittledip said:
I assume we are discussing atheistic evolution. That stated, how does one explain the first organism having the ability to take in nutrients (energy), self-reparation, expelling of waste, or have any functioning at all without any outside assistance? What is the standard explanation for this? The actual impartation of life to the first organism aside, it seems that the development of basic internal life systems would be problematic to atheistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with evolution?


and what the everlovingfuck is "atheistic evolution?"

what is with people inventing new fucking terms every damn week to try and describe something that they clearly don't understand?
 
Shit man people can't even agree whether global warming exists and you are talking about unprovable THEORY of evolution where it has never been shown one species turn into another different species? WHOA.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Evolution does not seek to answer the question of how life began, only how it has changed in the time since.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why I said "the impartation of life aside". I know that that abiogenesis, or whatever the newest term is, is different than evolution- I am not interested in that. I was asking about how the original organism had the right internal systems in place to survive. This seems like something that evolution would answer.
 
Pray To Jesus said:
Shit man people can't even agree whether global warming exists and you are talking about unprovable THEORY of evolution where it has never been shown one species turn into another different species? WHOA.
Click to expand...

Dude, this thread is only big enough for one ignorant trollish subject. Go create your own thread.
 
This many posts and no penisface decides to post evidence for evolution?

Fine, I'll do it. Maybe it'll shut the dumb redneck up.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

The magazine itself is subscription only but that should be an open article for you to enjoy. There are links to the actual papers with the data there but I doubt those will work as they are generally submitted to Nature and require paid access (which I have and you don't because you're all losers).

Bear in mind that the term "species" doesn't technically exist. Therefore all you need to prove the theory of evolution is that living creatures change in such a direction that it benefits them and that a particular change (or a combination of changes) is favored and naturally selected. A prime example of this that gets ignored relentlessly is rampant drug resistance found in bacteria.

http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/r/rmumme/FS101/ResearchPapers/SusanStreble.html

In essence, what we've done is naturally select bacteria with penicillin immunity by using penicillin-based drugs. These bacteria with that trait (or mutation) existed prior to the introduction of penicillin as an antimicrobial drug but when we used the drug we naturally selected the more "fit" penicillin-resistant bacteria to survive and replicate as the non-resistant critters died off. As a result, certain "species" of bacteria are almost entirely penicillin resistant and consequently have proven to be far more difficult to kill.

Now, are these new bacteria a new "species"? Well, remember that "species" is a relative term that we created, meaning we also determine where the lines are drawn. Nature doesn't have "species." Nature only has different living creatures. The question you should be asking yourselves is this

Is the change we've seen in the example provided above an instance where a living creature with a specific trait that is favorable under X circumstances isnaturally selected such that the creature with that specific genome is more likely to pass on those genes than another competing creature without that trait?

If the answer is yes and you see it in action -- remember that we see this every single time any one of us takes an antibiotic and we've done this in the lab millions of times -- then you've just proven the theory of evolution.

See? It's that easy. Have a good day 😉
 
Last edited:
spittledip said:
Yes, that is why I said "the impartation of life aside". I know that that abiogenesis, or whatever the newest term is, is different than evolution- I am not interested in that. I was asking about how the original organism had the right internal systems in place to survive. This seems like something that evolution would answer.
Click to expand...

Well, for the first billion or so years of life, organisms were about the most basic level you could possibly conceive of; single-celled organisms with no cell nucleus. They weren't hugely complex by any standard. It took well over a billion years for multi-cellular organisms to start to form, and even these were microscopic. Everything we think of when we think of life; mammals, birds, fish, lizards, dinosaurs, jellyfish, sharks, trees, ferns, grass, mushrooms... that's all within the last 600 million years. It took 3 billion years to go from single-celled bacteria to a more complex multi-cellular organism. 3 billion years. That's an inconceivable amount of time. That's all recorded human history 300,000 times over. Is it so hard to believe that life could change over such a vast expanse of time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top