Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this could go any worse. I mean, come on. It's a shame that there's nothing mods can do about acting childishly and simply trolling with nonsense gibberish. I say we stop answering these guy's questions and simply ignore him. That'll be much easier.

Oh, there's plenty we can do. He's already insulted everyone en masse, plus a bunch of people individually, and he's openly admitted to being a simple troll. As a new addition to the list, he's now advanced to insulting mods via PM. Good job!
We've let him stay for the hell of it, really, and in order to hold our annual Patience Competition (unannounced, of course). Dragan Glas won, btw, and he can look forward to being sent some cake via PM any day now.

But yeah, I say we give him a few more days. Let's see how much of reality he'll end up denying. Maybe he'll deny his own existence before he leaves.

Good times!

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

You've actually also even been rude to yourself, stating some days ago that reporting someone was being "a pussy", and then later go on to report someone yourself.

That only works if others follow the same way of thinking. But since they don't there's no reason not to report others wo are rude to me. Otherwise I'll be the only one who will get reported. How stupid would that be?

Ok, so you're accepting that you're a pussy by own name, then.

Not by anyone else's name, of course, since calling people pussy for that kind of thing is something you'd do in 5th grade - and expect to work. I'm not sure what that kind of thinking says about a person, but it seems in good keeping with what you've done here so far.

But yeah, I think it's clear that you're wasting the time of all of us in here with your sophistry and denial of reality and science. How about you actually offer something productive, like, say, a method of deducing anything at all about reality?

If I'm wasting your time then stop responding to me. I know this is my last response to you. Bye.[/quote]

You're missing the point, as usual. You're wasting ALL our times. On PURpose. I suppose you're still clinging to your "I'm doing it so others can see this" excuse, but that's as vapid and silly as your "explanation" for them finding Tiktaalik. You're a troll by admission, and everyone has had their fill. Your persisting here, or even starting to begin with, only had something to do with stroking your own ego, and evidently, the ego needs an awful lot of stroking, since you're still at it.

You've accomplished absolutely nothing here. You have successfully demonstrated that in order to defend your, eh, creationist-like viewpoint, one's arguments become increasingly convoluted and weird, and you end up denying basics about reality.
You've only damaged your own "case", and given us fodder for ours and entertainment. We're the ones who have gained from this, and we're thankful for that.

Thank you for coming here.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

...to see if he'll devolve into denying his own existence or something.

I say we write down a bunch of scenarios down, place them in a hat and whoever get's the one that comes true gets cake.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Incidentally, I must be doubly a pussy, because I reported myself. :lol:

Edit: Hang on, should I report this post as well? Since I have clearly just made a personal attack on a member, namely myself.

Damn, this is getting confusing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this could go any worse. I mean, come on. It's a shame that there's nothing mods can do about acting childishly and simply trolling with nonsense gibberish. I say we stop answering these guy's questions and simply ignore him. That'll be much easier.

Oh, there's plenty we can do. He's already insulted everyone en masse, plus a bunch of people individually, and he's openly admitted to being a simple troll. As a new addition to the list, he's now advanced to insulting mods via PM. Good job!
We've let him stay for the hell of it, really, and in order to hold our annual Patience Competition (unannounced, of course). Dragan Glas won, btw, and he can look forward to being sent some cake via PM any day now.

But yeah, I say we give him a few more days. Let's see how much of reality he'll end up denying. Maybe he'll deny his own existence before he leaves.

Good times!

What? he insulted a mod by PM here as well? Oh, and I thought I was special... :lol: :lol: Not only insulted by PM but also ignored! Where is the world going to? :lol: :lol: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Suicide by mod seems to be Czar's preference...

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

What? he insulted a mod by PM here as well? Oh, and I thought I was special...

Afraid not. We're both commoners now

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Is he still claiming that evolution acts like an evolutionary algorithm proves that a designer had to create evolution (but actual crystal annealing acting exactly like simulated annealing algorithm is somehow completely different)?

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Is he still claiming that evolution acts like an evolutionary algorithm proves that a designer had to create evolution (but actual crystal annealing acting exactly like simulated annealing algorithm is somehow completely different)?

Well, he never retracted or clarified any of his statements which leave your assessment the only remaining option, so...

yep.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Having come this far, there are a few things I'd like to say to you, Царь Славян.

I've mentioned before how your lack of knowledge and understanding of a subject means that you're unable to discuss that subject properly with anyone.

Well, this most recent post particularly evinces that.

This is one of the reasons I've suggested that you read up on it - to help your understanding.

I've also mentioned before that either:

a) you're not reading the posts:
b) you're not taking in/understanding the posts:
c) you're dismissing the posts - though, even here you should be able to remember what's been posted.

I also note that your thinking appears to be one-dimensional - perhaps, two- at best: my reason for saying this is that you appear to be obsessed with 100% certainty and appear unable to read-between-the-lines.

Normally, I'd expect someone who's read a post to have done so in full first before replying - with you, I sometimes can't escape the feeling that you're answering the post as you're reading each sentence.

Let me show you what I mean....

Given that the theory of evolution explains speciation over time, probabilities are inherent to it.

Explain how.

See (1) below ...

As I've said before, given two single-celled organisms, the probabilities of one procreating another single-celled organism like itself, and the other procreating a complete human being, in a single step, is NOT equivalent - as you appear to be implying, if not outright saying.

But this idea comes from the theory of probability not, evolution.

See (1) below...

There is no conspiracy to "conform" fossils, etc, to some preconceived tree of life.

I didn't say its a conspiracy, but that's what you are doing.

Once you're got a recognizable pattern, it's not surprising that you can predict that intermediates exist between known fossils and, having found them where you've predicted, it is equially not surprising that they pop into place in the pattern.

But the second part occurs because of the first - it doesn't happen on its own.

The tree of life has been deduced over centuries of observation - through the finding of fossils, to the dating of the strata in which they're found, etc, etc.

Okay, can you provide any evidence that any of that works?

See (1) below...

The picture at which we've arrived is a synthesis of all this knowledge - the fact that transitional fossils fit into it is due to predictions being made, prior to their being found, about their possible existence and characteristics.

They fit because any fossil would fit. There is no fossil that would not fit.

No, it wouldn't.

See (1) below...

You're not going to get a "croco-duck" between a crocodile and a duck - you will get a Tiktaalik between a fish and a reptile.

Why not?

See (1) below...

If you have blue eyes and blond hair and your parents have blue eyes and blond hair, then it's probable that this shows common ancestry. If your "parents" don't have these characteristics, then it's unlikely that you're their child.

This comes from genetic, particulary from our knowledge about recessive and dominant genes, not evolution.

See (1) below...

a) if they find it, it "conforms" to their "theory of evolution";
b) if not, they can say, "it exists - we just haven't found it yet".

Like duh. Before it was found evolution was thought to be true. If it was not found, it would still be thought of as true.

In the latter case, it might cause a rethink of intermediate fossils.

The theory of evolution does not exist in a vacuum - it is part of, and, indeed, is, a tapestry of branches of Science (from Anatomy through Zoology).

I know it doesn't, I'm simply saying that the predictions you named came from anatomy, not evolution.

(1) This is what I'm talking about - and the other parts of your post connect with this, as they reflect the same problem .

Re-read the answer I gave above and then your reply. In asking your question, it's clear that you haven't taken in what's been said or understood it's implication.

This is why I said you don't know/understand the subject, and why you ask such ignorant questions.

Here's a question for you:

How did Darwin come up with the theory of evolution?

Not why - but how?

This is why I suggest that you read a book - whether Darwin's classic or Darwin and God, so that you'll get a better understanding of this.

When you can answer my question properly, I'll answer the others - although, you should realize that I don't need to do so because you'll understand why all of these questions/statements I've marked are pointless.

If your answer shows that you still don't understand, I'll ask you to "Try again!".

As such, this synthesis of sciences allows evolutionary biologists to predict what may be found - and where - based on a study of the characteristics of preceding and subsequent fossils.

No, again, its anatomy not evolution.

See above.

They can't predict animals in the distant future - they can predict animals in the near future: such as the fact that, due to climate change, polar bears and grizzlies will interbreed to produce a hybrid.

And if they don't is evolution shown false then?

Would it? No - but they'd have to have a rethink on how well they understand the environment's effects on evolution: does predation play a more dominant role?

It would mean that there was a problem with the theory - because it would not be consistent with the tapestry of life which has been built up through centuries of study.

Why is that a problem for the tree of life?

See (1) above.

Preceding fossils do not indicate that canine characteristics had evolved, nor afterwards - therefore, a fossil poodle would be so out of placee as to be shattering for the theory.

But this one would indicate precisely that. That it did evolve.

It wouldn't - as I said, you can only get characteristics from preceding life-forms. Since there'd be absolutely no evidence of skeletal structures of a poodle having been found in previous fossils, this would throw the patterned tree of life into turmoil.

And, what "line" is that, exactly?

Being rude or just wasting my time.

Others have answered that.

No-one in the scientific community calls them "wings" - they are specialized "fins", used for gliding for short distances, which have evolved through predation.

I don't care how you call them, they serve the same purpose as the wings do.

True - just so you realize that they're "fins", not "wings", although they serve a corresponding purpose.

In order to develop true flight, as you're proposing, they'd have to evolve bulky musculature (like birds) which could flap these fins - that bulk would prevent them from building up the turn-of-speed needed to escape predators underwater and to get into the air.

No, if they evolved other features to make up for their bulk, they would still be able to remain at the same speed while escaping.

They are streamlined for speed - they have to be to escape their main predators: dolphin/porpoise, tuna and marlin - all very fast swimmers (the marlin is considered the fastest fish in the sea).

Perhaps now you can understand why they evolved this capability - as a last chance of escape when threatened with being eaten. [By that I mean this trait was the result of predation: those that survived due to "flying", bred - not that they "chose" to evolve it!]]

It's highly improbable that heavier fish will be able to evolve this trait. as it would be too "costly", in the evolutionary sense of the term.

Some paths are more probable than others - as such, bypassed paths will be unlikely to evolve.

The eye developed differently for cephalopods - like the octopus - and monkeys/apes: the light-detecting cells face in different directions.

As a result, it is highly improbable - P approaches 0 - that these life-forms will evolve the other's eye pattern.

Okay, but they can happen. Thus evolution predicts that eyes will and will not evolve.

You seem to be agreeing with me and yet you appear to be saying that "anything can happen".

Well, that's your decision - but it does not paint you in a good light...

I couldn't care less.

You should.

What "designed" humans?

I don't know I wasn't there.

You have no thoughts on the matter? No ideas?

And, please don't just say, "a Intelligence" - because that implies a purpose in doing so - in which case, you need to explain why...

No, I do not. I do not know the purpose of the Rosetta stone, yet I can call it designed.

Certainly - the Rosetta Stone was designed by humans, to record what was deemed a important event in three different languages.

And from whence did this "Intelligence", which you believe "designed" humans, come?

Don't know, nor is it relevant for the discussion.

No ideas or thoughts on it?

It is of particular relevance as regards evolution - as you should have realized.

Did this "intelligence" cause or affect it?

And if the universe wasn't "designed", how did it come into being?

Don't know, wasn't there either.

No ideas or thoughts on the matter? Are you interested in knowing how it came about?

What are your philosophical beliefs, if you don't mind my asking?

They are nice and fluffy.

Hmmmm,.... I see.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

They can't predict animals in the distant future - they can predict animals in the near future: such as the fact that, due to climate change, polar bears and grizzlies will interbreed to produce a hybrid.

Actaully, they can't even reasonably predict organisms in the near future, because evolution is stochastic. What can be predicted, though, is the existence of organisms such as have been cited, namely tiktaalik, and the giant hawk moth, because those predictions arise from having seen preceding and succeeding organisms. They're still predictions, though, because they deal with organisms not yet discovered.

I beg to differ with you on this, hackenslash.

I grant you that evolution is stochastic, but given obvious environmental changes, one would be hard-pressed not to be able to predict a likely hybridization in the near future.

For example, polar bears and grizzlies producing hybrids due to the polar bears habitat disappearing: the possibility that polar bears - robbed of their ice camouflage, their breeding grounds (on the ice) and the seals which live on the ice - will travel south into grizzly country.

This could also allow grizzlies to move farther north into polar bears' territory - at least, on land.

The obvious will happen - inter-breeding.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ProcInc]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

It seems as though his intention was to be banned in order to meet his martyr quotient and satisfying his prejudices.

However, ironically despite his best efforts we are tolerant and continue offering him an open platform while he is doing whatever censorship he is capable of (censoring himself from replies via 'ignore'.)

By not banning and letting him continue to try getting banned in increasingly elaborate ways we are testifying to the unwritten rule that creationists are simply crappier people by necessity.


I have to disagree James. Polar bears are in all likelihood too genetically diverged from grizzlys to interbreed and produce anything fertile or otherwise. Sexual comparability can not realistically converge either

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Polar bears are in all likelihood too genetically diverged from grizzlys to interbreed and produce anything fertile or otherwise.

No, grizzly-polar bear hybrids exist and they are fertile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid#Grizzly_bear.2FPolar_bear_hybrids

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I have to disagree James. Polar bears are in all likelihood too genetically diverged from grizzlys to interbreed and produce anything fertile or otherwise. Sexual comparability can not realistically converge either

No, ProcInc, that turns out not to be the case.

They have interbred - as the Wiki article indicates.

Furthermore, as this Scientific American article reports, they are fertile - it reports a second-generation specimen.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ProcInc]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Oh fantastic, I stand corrected.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Oh fantastic, I stand corrected.

See how easy that is, Царь Славян? ProcInc made a statement that he was sort of sure was correct. Other users pointed out that he was in error and you see what happened? He accepted the fact that he was wrong, and no one here thinks the less of him for it. In fact, everyone here respects him just that little bit more because he's willing to learn. The phrase "stand corrected" is particularly beautiful to me. Here he is, proven wrong in front of his peers, but he's still standing, unbroken, dignity intact, ready to carry on discussing, learning and teaching others.

I sincerely hope you will learn from this little example, drop your foolish pride, admit your ignorance (at least to yourself) of subjects that are far above your level of education, and begin the process of educating yourself in at least the bare minimum concepts involved in the subjects you've chosen to discuss.

I don't expect that to happen, however. What I do anticipate is more of the same, whether you do so here or somewhere else. I expect you will blithely trespass into realms of discussion that offer you no respite where people like us will use you as an excuse to do some research to better understand our own ideas while casually bitch-slapping yours aside as the barely literate twaddle they are. You will take your rhetorical, and factual, evisceration as a sign of your strength of character and ability to suffer for your ideas, but you will be wrong. Your ideas are wrong. You are wrong to hold them.

We await your either self destruction or your cowardly unheralded retreat. I would love to be proven wrong, mate. Accept the innumerable times you've had your severed buttocks served to you on a silver platter with the humility such repeated debunking deserves. Be the better man. You can do it!

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

I beg to differ with you on this, hackenslash.

I grant you that evolution is stochastic, but given obvious environmental changes, one would be hard-pressed not to be able to predict a likely hybridization in the near future.

For example, polar bears and grizzlies producing hybrids due to the polar bears habitat disappearing: the possibility that polar bears - robbed of their ice camouflage, their breeding grounds (on the ice) and the seals which live on the ice - will travel south into grizzly country.

This could also allow grizzlies to move farther north into polar bears' territory - at least, on land.

The obvious will happen - inter-breeding.

Kindest regards,

James

Hmm, yes, but polar bears and grixxlies are actually the same species. Predicting hybrids is not the same as predicting future species, which there is no really reliable way to do.

Now, it could be argued that they are actually different species, but under the BSC they simply aren't, because gene flow is possible between them, which means that by definition they're the same species, and it shows that our classification of them as separate species was wrong.

So certain areas of organism space can be reasonably predicted, but the vast majority of it is too variable to be able to make reasonable predictions.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Hmm, yes, but polar bears and grixxlies are actually the same species. Predicting hybrids is not the same as predicting future species, which there is no really reliable way to do.

Now, it could be argued that they are actually different species, but under the BSC they simply aren't, because gene flow is possible between them, which means that by definition they're the same species, and it shows that our classification of them as separate species was wrong.

So certain areas of organism space can be reasonably predicted, but the vast majority of it is too variable to be able to make reasonable predictions.

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are descended from the Brown bear (Ursus arctos) - which includes a number of sub-species throughout Europe, Asia and North America - who evolved to adapt to the Arctic environment.

Granted, they are capable of mating and, as such, are the same specie, though they appear to avoid each other in the wild - different habitats and ecological niches.

Nevertheless, given the rarity of such matings occurring in the wild - a known few in a couple of centuries - it is a fairly difficult prediction to make.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Naw, being half greek and half italian, and having done latin in school, I have a couple of notes on the taxonomic names of the bears:

Ursus maritimus: actual meaning is bear of the sea, and both words are derived from latin. Ursus = bear in latin, and maritimus = of the sea. Mare = sea, and still used with the same meaning in modern italian. In fact the "mare/mari" names of the various features of the moon and Mars, do mean "sea of <insert something here>".

Ursus arctos: this actually means "bear bear". Ursus is the latin name for bear, and arctos is the ancient greek name for bear. Sometimes the word arctos is still used in modern greek. For example the Ursus Major and Ursus Minor constellations, are in greek called "Megali arctos" and "Mikri arctos" which mean "Big Bear" and "Small Bear".

Ursus Major = Megali Arctos = Big Bear
Ursus Minor = Mikri Arctos = Small Bear

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Once you're got a recognizable pattern, it's not surprising that you can predict that intermediates exist between known fossils and, having found them where you've predicted, it is equially not surprising that they pop into place in the pattern.

But the second part occurs because of the first - it doesn't happen on its own.

But there is nothing to predict. You have the starting and ending point. Now you just have to morph in your mind something that would look inbetween those two forms and you're done. You have a transitional fossil. And you wait for few years when something like that is found and that's it. This is not predicting. You have to predict something that is not evolved yet.

In the latter case, it might cause a rethink of intermediate fossils.

Why?

How did Darwin come up with the theory of evolution?

He made it up based on Lamarck's idea.

Would it? No - but they'd have to have a rethink on how well they understand the environment's effects on evolution: does predation play a more dominant role?

I knew it. Of course it wouldn't. Nothing would! That's my point.

It wouldn't - as I said, you can only get characteristics from preceding life-forms. Since there'd be absolutely no evidence of skeletal structures of a poodle having been found in previous fossils, this would throw the patterned tree of life into turmoil.

LOL! There are no dinosaurs in teh fossil record before the first one was found eitehr! Like duh again!

And there are no fossils of vertebrate animals before the first one was found! Duh again!

And there are no dogs in teh fossil record before the first one was found either!

So guess what, if we did find a dog in the cambrian rock, that would simply mean that this is the earliest one we found. Earlier than the previous ones we found.

True - just so you realize that they're "fins", not "wings", although they serve a corresponding purpose.

I don't care how you call them. They can according to evolution evolve into bird-like wings for flying.

It's highly improbable that heavier fish will be able to evolve this trait. as it would be too "costly", in the evolutionary sense of the term.

Not if they compensate with something else.

You seem to be agreeing with me and yet you appear to be saying that "anything can happen".

Because that's the case according to evolution.

You have no thoughts on the matter? No ideas?

I can't say, I can only go as far as saying that it was an intelligence.

Certainly - the Rosetta Stone was designed by humans, to record what was deemed a important event in three different languages.

You THINK that, you don't know that. Yet, you still inferred design. As far as you know, it could have been designed by aliens to deceive us.

No ideas or thoughts on it?

It is of particular relevance as regards evolution - as you should have realized.

Did this "intelligence" cause or affect it?

Some thinks that it did. I think that it did not. I thnik that when the design was done, no more interference was made with anything else in nature. If aliens did it, they aren't doing it anymore. If somethin outside the universe did it, it isn't doing it anymore.

No ideas or thoughts on the matter? Are you interested in knowing how it came about?

Yes, but I have no method to tell me how it did come about.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Some thinks that it did. I think that it did not. I thnik that when the design was done, no more interference was made with anything else in nature. If aliens did it, they aren't doing it anymore. If somethin outside the universe did it, it isn't doing it anymore.

Yes, because the current "design" of life forms, including ours, is just absolutely perfect, the normal for an omnipotent being.