- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:12 pm to KCT
Mutations are random, evolution is not. That doesn't mean evolution "thinks" or intentionally directs anything.
The selection of one set of traits over others is determined by the enviroment and the biological and physical demands on the organism. Which organisms pass on their genes isn't random, it is determined by their respective fitness.
Is it "random" that a person born with a defect that kills him at 20 likely won't have as many kids as someone who lives to be 100?
The selection of one set of traits over others is determined by the enviroment and the biological and physical demands on the organism. Which organisms pass on their genes isn't random, it is determined by their respective fitness.
Is it "random" that a person born with a defect that kills him at 20 likely won't have as many kids as someone who lives to be 100?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:20 pm to KCT
quote:
You can't have it both ways, people. If there was no Supreme Being or Intelligent Design guiding the genesis of everything, then that means that everything we know and experience happened by chance, or randomly.
Natural selection isn't random. Certain members of have some trait about that them that makes them better at surviving and passing on their genes than other members of the species. The more nature benefits this trait the more exaggerated it becomes throughout the generation.
If for some humans could survive significantly better by dunking a basketball, eventual all the humans would be able to dunk a basketball, because the ones who couldn't dunk wouldn't survive to pass on their genes. This is real survival not surviving with our without a lambo.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:45 pm to SammyTiger
I applaud you guys for the amount of breathe you are completely wasting on this. 
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:49 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I applaud you guys for the amount of breathe you are completely wasting on this.
The way I look at it, if I can convince one person to at least think about why and how we know what we know, then it was worth it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:10 pm to Korkstand
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:20 pm to Korkstand
Damn Korkstand, you kicked this thread's arse.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:51 pm to Bayou Sam
really?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:33 pm to themunch
he's been frickin this thread up with some truth 
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:34 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
I applaud you guys for the amount of breathe you are completely wasting on this.
Not only that, but I applaud just how cordial most have been considering Karla's complete lack of either ability of interest in understanding the rebuttals offered to her while at the same time being belligerent to all that offered them.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:53 pm to iAmBatman
what truth?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:59 pm to themunch
quote:
what truth?
Get your point out.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:00 pm to themunch
quote:
what truth?
This was from page 6 I believe. For all with even a shred of intellectual honesty and a basic understanding of science, this ought to have been the thread ender.
quote:
This is, as I've said many times in this thread, a misunderstanding of the results of the study. Many of the people alive at the time of this common ancestor also have descendants alive today. You have two grandfathers, don't you? And 4 great-grandfathers? And 8 great-great-grandfathers? Well, someone else also has 8 great-great-grandfathers, and the two of you might have all of them in common (your sibling), or you might have 4 of them in common (a cousin), or you might have 1 in common (a distant cousin), or you might have none in common. If you look back far enough, we all have one common male ancestor, and this study has estimated how long ago he lived. That's it. You and I might have 1,000 common ancestors that lived at the same time, but you and a guy in China might only have 1. Make sense?
And yet, we're on page 10 so...um...
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:02 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
GeauxTigerTM
I kind of appreciate how the idea that a single past alpha male could justify the bible when the assumption works pretty darn well without the assumption of a deity.
I know some will believe in the higher power, I'm not trying to dissuede them, but the conclusion isn't proving anything about religion one way or another.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:09 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
This was from page 6 I believe. For all with even a shred of intellectual honesty and a basic understanding of science, this ought to have been the thread ender.
There was an illustration somewhere, that people try to think in a straight line:
ie, Great-Grandfather --> Grandfather --> Father --> Me
Well, that is insane. It is much more 3 Dimensional, if you will. Everyone has 2 parents, and 4 grandparents, and 8 great grandparents (etc etc etc) that have given us our genetics, for thousands of generations. And when there is a genetic bottleneck...
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:13 pm to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
I kind of appreciate how the idea that a single past alpha male could justify the bible when the assumption works pretty darn well without the assumption of a deity.
I know some will believe in the higher power, I'm not trying to dissuede them, but the conclusion isn't proving anything about religion one way or another.
The thing about the original article is that other than their use of the names "Adam" and "Eve" in it (which is solely because of the literary value of using those names in western culture) there's nothing in it that suggests what the OP is ham handedly trying to suggest. In fact, it make a beautifully illustrated case for how evolution works over long time scales and just how far back you'd need to go to reach the first humans to which we are all genetically related.
Despite the fact that this has been pointed out to her (and others) no less than 20 times in this thread, she continues to insist the article is suggesting they found THE Adam. At some point you have to conclude that either someone is too stupid to get a point being made to them, that they are willfully ignorant for any number of reasons, or they know full well what the truth is and are lying. Whichever is the case here, I'm stunned at just how polite and how much information has been offered to someone that has all the signs of not reading one word of it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:26 pm to KCT
quote:
Why does there have to be a conflict between God and Science?
The two sides don't have to fight, but they've got their differences. Science and religion don't coincide well enough.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:35 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
that they are willfully ignorant for any number of reasons
This one. In my experience.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:39 pm to KCT
quote:
Why does there have to be a conflict between God and Science?
Why does there have to be a conflict with the belief in an eternal, omnipresent, and all knowing entity that can't possibly be proven and the field that uses reason and evidence to explain the natural world?
Did you think before you typed that?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 3:58 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
that uses reason
not true
you can prove using philosophy that there is a necessity for some type of entity that is the qualities of what Christians call God. Sure you can't reason to a trinity but you can at-least reason to the need for a deity.
For example Aquinas' 5 ways.
Page 10 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News