The Tea Party is about the ECONOMY!

[First]

It just goes to show you how worthless scientists are when thousands of them working for decades can't figure out (or won't admit!) what you and most people know already.

You are a thoroughly awesome parody poster. comptr6 FTW!

 

[sportage]

The tea party is prime example of the stupid running the country.
But we all know they were created as result of a black president in the whitehouse.
No one is being fooled. Their logic makes no sense. They just feel their white America
has been hijacked.

 

[Matt1970]

comptr6

I have read the Bible enough and attended enough church services to firmly conclude that religion has no answers for science. Accounts in the Bible have at most, a tenuous and flimsy connection to history. If your religion has a positive affect on your life, you are welcome to it.

It's pretty easy to surmise things didn’t exactly happen the way it’s explained in the bible. It is a book written over 2000 years ago to be understood by the people of it's time. A lot of religions are embracing this but a few a still left in the dark ages claiming the earth is only 6000 years old and life only exists on this planet.

 

[child of wonder]

Why can't there be a major political party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

 

[CitizenKain]

Nope, just don't buy it. There are just too damn many weird things in nature to explain it all by accidental mutation and survival of the fittest. Ever seen a snapping turtle wiggle the lure on it's tongue to attract prey? Are you going to tell me that is an accidental mutation? How about creatures that emulate other creatures? There is just too much weird shit out there to explain it away by accidental mutations. Creatures will evolve due to their environment therefore the environment must have some effect on the way a creature adds to it's DNA. Evolution adds information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms and science doesn't have a fucking clue how.

People who don't understand how science works should shut up and stop pretending they have some sort of insight or valued input. Just because you aren't smart enough to understand simple biology doesn't mean other people don't. At least you've made it even easier to discount anything you will ever say here from now on.

 

[Matt1970]

Wow some of you people are a little too touchy when it comes to someone saying there are holes the theory of evolution. A freak accidental mutation from cell splitting doesn’t explain complex organs or Circulatory systems. The simplest of DNA strands would have to have been added to not merely rearranged for evolution to take place.

 

[Pens1566]

This thread needs more stupid ...

 

[jackschmittusa]

Matt1970

The scientific answers are already out there. You either can't understand them or you haven't bothered to look.

Again, you don't look too sharp when you use your obvious lack of knowledge to find fault with mountains of knowledge that is readily available to you. The things that astound and mystify you are common knowledge to others who have made the effort to understand.

 

[Macamus Prime]

I once heards someone say; "I choose to not believe in evolution." It's like, Just Say No To Evolution.

 

[Thump553]

Why can't there be a major political party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

That WAS the GOP-at least in New England-before the Southern Strategy. Lots of them still around here too, but they will never rise above the local government stage. Too much national money around that will brand them as RINOs, which is truly ironic.


I've recently come to the conclusion-something that may be patently obvious to others-is that the so-called tea party is just GWB supporters rebranded and packaged as the next new thing. Ain't Madison Avenue great?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Wow some of you people are a little too touchy when it comes to someone saying there are holes the theory of evolution. A freak accidental mutation from cell splitting doesn’t explain complex organs or Circulatory systems. The simplest of DNA strands would have to have been added to not merely rearranged for evolution to take place.

You're still not understanding the concepts that we're trying to teach you at all. Some organism didn't just randomly develop a full circulatory system one day. It developed a couple of blood vessels (if that) which helped it to live more easily. Then it became the dominant type of its species, and as its descendants eventually mutated more and more of this mutation, one of them mutated something resembling a circulatory system that worked. Of course, this is a vast oversimplification, but the basic principles behind it hold true.

Edit: And a mutation isn't necessarily changing an existing part of a DNA strand. It can add new parts.

 

[Matt1970]

Matt1970

The scientific answers are already out there. You either can't understand them or you haven't bothered to look.

Again, you don't look too sharp when you use your obvious lack of knowledge to find fault with mountains of knowledge that is readily available to you. The things that astound and mystify you are common knowledge to others who have made the effort to understand.

Actually I have done a lot of reading on the subject and the answers become more theory than fact when the simple question of "How does evolution produce new and complex features?" gets asked. Here is an example.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIC1aComplexNovelties.shtml

You will have to excuse my 3rd grade ignorance but when they are just "possibilities", I don't see them as a definitive answer.

 

[Matt1970]

Edit: And a mutation isn't necessarily changing an existing part of a DNA strand. It can add new parts.

That's basicly been my question all along. What adds those parts?

 

[Ldir]

That WAS the GOP-at least in New England-before the Southern Strategy. Lots of them still around here too, but they will never rise above the local government stage. Too much national money around that will brand them as RINOs, which is truly ironic.


I've recently come to the conclusion-something that may be patently obvious to others-is that the so-called tea party is just GWB supporters rebranded and packaged as the next new thing. Ain't Madison Avenue great?

This. The name has been changed to protect the guilty.

 

[shira]

Well you seem to have really answered nothing. I already know about the mutations in DNA, but it doesn't "JUST" happen. Something has to tell that tree it needs a defensive system. Something has to tell the DNA string to change. And instinct has absolutely nothing to do with a persons tatse prefrences or individuality.

The explanation is is very simple:

Random mutations created all sorts of tree characteristics. Most of the mutations were disadvantageous, and most of the mutant trees died. However, mutations to some ancient trees provided a simple defensive system and were not otherwise disadvantageous. All other things being equal, a smaller percentage of ancient trees that lacked the mutant simple defensive system survived than ancient trees that had the mutant simple defensive system. Over eons, that meant that what survived were trees with defensive systems. So today, we see only the trees with a defensive systems. Nothing "told" the trees to do this.

Organisms without the beneficial characteristics you seem to think are so extraordinary could not survived to the current era, so of course you don't see them. You see only organisms with well-adapted characteristics. "Instruction" from God is not required; only the brutal natural law that you adapt or perish.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[shira]

And there are those that think that because we have evolved it is proof god doesn't exist but both of those seem to be the minority since (the exact numbers seen to vary) since the vast majority of people believe in God and more than 1/2 the people believe in Evolution is some form.

I don't believe in God because I haven't seen any peer-reviewed studies - not a single one - that demonstrate the existence of God, and I don't tend to believe in things for which there is zero objective evidence.

You, however, clearly believe in God because it's your way of dealing with things you can't otherwise explain. In other words, you believe in the God of the Gaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[Matt1970]

I think believing in God because of the gaps leaves even more questions than answers. I can understand your non belief in God as there is really very little proof.

 

[Matt1970]

The explanation is is very simple:

Random mutations created all sorts of tree characteristics. Most of the mutations were disadvantageous, and most of the mutant trees died. However, mutations to some ancient trees provided a simple defensive system and were not otherwise disadvantageous. All other things being equal, a smaller percentage of ancient trees that lacked the mutant simple defensive system survived than ancient trees that had the mutant simple defensive system. Over eons, that meant that what survived were trees with defensive systems. So today, we see only the trees with a defensive systems. Nothing "told" the trees to do this.

Organisms without the beneficial characteristics you seem to think are so extraordinary could not survived to the current era, so of course you don't see them. You see only organisms with well-adapted characteristics. "Instruction" from God is not required; only the brutal natural law that you adapt or perish.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I do understand that and that does explain a large portion of evolution but I also believe some how our bodies can all be it very slowly manipulate DNA to suit our needs.

I found this on the net. It may explain my point better.

Current fossil evidence indicates that modern humans evolved from a species called Homo erectus. Homo erectus appeared about 2 million years ago. Looking at the skull of Homo erectus, we know that its brain size was on the order of 800 or 900 cubic centimeters (CCs).

Modern human brain size averages about 1,500 CCs or so. In other words, in about 2 million years, evolution roughly doubled the size of the Homo erectus brain to create the human brain that we have today. Our brains contain approximately 100 billion neurons today, so in 2 million years, evolution added 50 billion neurons to the Homo erectus brain (while at the same time redesigning the skull to accommodate all of those neurons and redesigning the female pelvis to let the larger skull through during birth, etc.).

Let's assume that Homo erectus was able to reproduce every 10 years. That means that, in 2 million years, there were 200,000 generations of Homo erectus possible. There are four possible explanations for where the 50 billion new neurons came from in 200,000 generations:

Every generation, 250,000 new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (250,000 * 200,000 = 50 billion).
Every 100,000 years, 2.5 billion new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (2,500,000,000 * 20 = 50 billion).
Perhaps 500,000 years ago, there was a spurt of 20 or so closely-spaced generations that added 2.5 billion neurons per generation.
One day, spontaneously, 50 billion new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain to create the Homo sapiens brain.

None of these scenarios is particularly comfortable. We see no evidence that evolution is randomly adding 250,000 neurons to each child born today, so that explanation is hard to swallow. The thought of adding a large package of something like 2.5 billion neurons in one step is difficult to imagine, because there is no way to explain how the neurons would wire themselves in. What sort of point mutation would occur in a DNA molecule that would suddenly create billions of new neurons and wire them correctly?* The current theory of evolution does not predict how this could happen.

 

[jonks]

SNIP
The current theory of evolution does not predict how this could happen.

For argument's sake, what is it you're proposing? That we not teach evolution b/c it isn't perfect, or that we consider teaching ID, a completely non-scientific theory alongside evolution b/c evolution isn't perfect?

Whatever your qualms, do you accept that evolution is the best explanation we have reached, by an essentially universal scientific consensus?

 

[shira]

I do understand that and that does explain a large portion of evolution but I also believe some how our bodies can all be it very slowly manipulate DNA to suit our needs.

I found this on the net. It may explain my point better.

Current fossil evidence indicates that modern humans evolved from a species called Homo erectus. Homo erectus appeared about 2 million years ago. Looking at the skull of Homo erectus, we know that its brain size was on the order of 800 or 900 cubic centimeters (CCs).

Modern human brain size averages about 1,500 CCs or so. In other words, in about 2 million years, evolution roughly doubled the size of the Homo erectus brain to create the human brain that we have today. Our brains contain approximately 100 billion neurons today, so in 2 million years, evolution added 50 billion neurons to the Homo erectus brain (while at the same time redesigning the skull to accommodate all of those neurons and redesigning the female pelvis to let the larger skull through during birth, etc.).

Let's assume that Homo erectus was able to reproduce every 10 years. That means that, in 2 million years, there were 200,000 generations of Homo erectus possible. There are four possible explanations for where the 50 billion new neurons came from in 200,000 generations:

Every generation, 250,000 new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (250,000 * 200,000 = 50 billion).
Every 100,000 years, 2.5 billion new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (2,500,000,000 * 20 = 50 billion).
Perhaps 500,000 years ago, there was a spurt of 20 or so closely-spaced generations that added 2.5 billion neurons per generation.
One day, spontaneously, 50 billion new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain to create the Homo sapiens brain.

None of these scenarios is particularly comfortable. We see no evidence that evolution is randomly adding 250,000 neurons to each child born today, so that explanation is hard to swallow. The thought of adding a large package of something like 2.5 billion neurons in one step is difficult to imagine, because there is no way to explain how the neurons would wire themselves in. What sort of point mutation would occur in a DNA molecule that would suddenly create billions of new neurons and wire them correctly?* The current theory of evolution does not predict how this could happen.

First of all, you're confusing volume with area. I'm not an expert on brain morphology, but my understanding is that most neurons are near the surface. So, a 76% increase (1.5/.85) in the volume of the brain would mean (approximately) an increase in the surface area (or, equivalently, the number of neurons) of only about 33%. That gets the increase down from 50 billion to 25 billion neurons.

Furthermore, that 800 to 900 cc figure is an average. It's likely that the brain volume of Homo erectus follows a Gaussian distribution. Some rare individuals may have had a volume of 1000 cc or more. It's also possible that the standard deviation of brain volume was greater for Homo erectus than for Homo sapiens. And clearly, since intelligence renders a greater differential survival advantage for humans than it does for other species that depend less on intelligence, those humanoids with larger brains would tend to thrive versus those with smaller brains. So, for me, it's easy to understand how there could have been a rapid increase in AVERAGE brain size, especially if there were already Homo erectus with very large brains.

Edit: Finally, in essence, the discussion has reduced to "It doesn't make sense to me that it could have happened that fast." So we're arguing over whether my clock is ticking too fast versus your clock. Unless you know a lot about clocks and how long natural change actually takes, the discussion has been removed from the realm of science and into the realm personal opinion.

 

[Matt1970]

For argument's sake, what is it you're proposing? That we not teach evolution b/c it isn't perfect, or that we consider teaching ID, a completely non-scientific theory alongside evolution b/c evolution isn't perfect?

Whatever your qualms, do you accept that evolution is the best explanation we have reached, by an essentially universal scientific consensus?

I would have to agree with that. There is no other competing theory that even comes close in my opinion.

God created everything in six days - Clearly not the case
Intelligent Design - Hard to disprove but the design would have been put in place billions of years ago and left to grow on it's own.

I guess my opinion can be summed up as there is still a lot in evolution we don't understand. Some people on this server took offence to the very fact that there are holes/gaps in the theory of evolution. I probably shouldn't have said science doesn't know squat, because that is clearly not the case, but I was called ignorant and retarded for even pointing out that there are holes in the theory.

 

[JSt0rm]

Intelligent Design - Hard to disprove

no

 

[sandorski]

I would have to agree with that. There is no other competing theory that even comes close in my opinion.

God created everything in six days - Clearly not the case
Intelligent Design - Hard to disprove but the design would have been put in place billions of years ago and left to grow on it's own.

I guess my opinion can be summed up as there is still a lot in evolution we don't understand. Some people on this server took offence to the very fact that there are holes/gaps in the theory of evolution. I probably shouldn't have said science doesn't know squat, because that is clearly not the case, but I was called ignorant and retarded for even pointing out that there are holes in the theory.

No. You are ignorant/tarded if you think that's a valid argument against Evolution.

 

[CitizenKain]

I would have to agree with that. There is no other competing theory that even comes close in my opinion.

God created everything in six days - Clearly not the case
Intelligent Design - Hard to disprove but the design would have been put in place billions of years ago and left to grow on it's own.

Because you cannot disprove ID shows why it is completely useless as a theory for anything. You may as well say witches did it, because how do you prove that witches didn't?

 

[Matt1970]

No. You are ignorant/tarded if you think that's a valid argument against Evolution.

Go back and look at page 1.