Thread: Whoops? I made life!

Funny in the sense they are complete strawman ideas... but after trawling through the archives of FSTDT, these aren't so funny by comparison...

It's funnier if it's not a strawman.

On the topic of strawman ideas can I ask you a question:

As we cannot yet observe macroevolution, is it credible to use observed microevolution as support for macroevolution, or is it "reductio ad absurdum" to do so? Is it not like observing that an ant can lift ten times its weight and generalising it to humans? Or is the latter just another strawman to add to the list?

Originally Posted by Korittke

It's funnier if it's not a strawman.

Originally Posted by Korittke

It's funnier if it's not a strawman.

Its like you had the insight, but you didn't use it.

Originally Posted by psychology student

On the topic of strawman ideas can I ask you a question:

As we cannot yet observe macroevolution, is it credible to use observed microevolution as support for macroevolution, or is it "reductio ad absurdum" to do so? Is it not like observing that an ant can lift ten times its weight and generalising it to humans? Or is the latter just another strawman to add to the list?

We have observed macro-evolution though. Haven't you paid attention in your Biology classes (did you even take it for A-levels?).

The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale. The process by which they occur is the same. We even have the fossil record to show that it does happen.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

We have observed macro-evolution though. Haven't you paid attention in your Biology classes (did you even take it for A-levels?).

The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale. The process by which they occur is the same. We even have the fossil record to show that it does happen.

Thats my point? Can you generalise a microcosm to its macrocosm?

I didn't take biology at A-level.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Thats my point? Can you generalise a microcosm to its macrocosm?

Yes. For example, evolution can be summed up with walking. Micro-evolution can be generalised as me getting up and walking to the kitchen to put the kettle on (a short distance). Macro-evolution is the same process... but instead of walking to the kitchen, it's me walking all the way to the supermarket to buy some more coffee (a long distance). You can't say micro-evolution happens whilst macro-evolution doesn't, because ultimately, the process that governs the two is the same. The only difference is the time scale.

Originally Posted by psychology student

I didn't take biology at A-level.

Then most likely, you haven't studied evolution in greater detail, thus the misinformed ideas. I'm not gonna say "you know fuck all" as I'm sure you have at least some ideas. However, because of the lack of detail in certain areas, it is not surprising you have some misinformed ideas on the subject.

If you want, should I post some informative videos or channels for explaining Evolution?

Microevolution and macroevolution are arbitrary distinctions used to illustrate the different levels of evolution. It's still just one process - evolution. Saying that microevolution applies (which it obviously does) but macroevolution doesn't is like saying that gravity applies but only up to 500 lbs.

Originally Posted by psychology student

These are so funny:





Discuss.

they're more just ignorant than funny really.

Ah, thunderf00t.

Thunderf00t is indeed awesome. So is AronRa, Potholer54, ExtantDodo, DonExodus2 and last but not least, cdk007. As for stuff pointing out the absurdities and contradictions of the Bible, JohnLArmstrong is another awesome person.

Originally Posted by psychology student

These are so funny:



Discuss.

You do realise that that's got fuck all to do with atheism don't you?

Not funny, just ignorant.

As we cannot yet observe macroevolution, is it credible to use observed microevolution as support for macroevolution, or is it "reductio ad absurdum" to do so? Is it not like observing that an ant can lift ten times its weight and generalising it to humans? Or is the latter just another strawman to add to the list?

'Macroevolution' is not a separate process as a species is really a rather arbitrary label... Korittke basically said it all already.

And have you never heard of the fossil record? You don't seriously think that the huge amount of knowledge that biologists have about the ancestry of species is just guesswork, do you?

Originally Posted by Idolfan

You do realise that that's got fuck all to do with atheism don't you?

My first thoughts exactly... I think someone needs to lookup the definition of atheism.

As we cannot yet observe macroevolution, is it credible to use observed microevolution as support for macroevolution, or is it "reductio ad absurdum" to do so? Is it not like observing that an ant can lift ten times its weight and generalising it to humans? Or is the latter just another strawman to add to the list?

I'm assuming by 'macroevolution' you mean a large evolutionary change. What happens when you add lots of smaller pices? You get a larger piece.

Oh and incidentally, large genetic changes can still occur in a small time frame anyway and this has been observed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy.

Polyploidy can actually result in a new species that is genetically incompatible with the parent species in a single generation.

You should have done A level biology. Or some basic research. Or even both.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I'm assuming by 'macroevolution' you mean a large evolutionary change. What happens when you add lots of smaller pices? You get a larger piece.

Oh and incidentally, large genetic changes can still occur in a small time frame anyway and this has been observed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy.

Polyploidy can actually result in a new species that is genetically incompatible with the parent species in a single generation.

You should have done A level biology. Or some basic research. Or even both.

Oh yeah, I covered Polyploidy in A-level Biology... fascinating stuff. Also shows that meiosis is not a flawless mechanism. Again, not exactly evidence for 'intelligent design'.

In other words.

Timescale?

Okay so dogs becoming different species and variations of dogs over time is 'micro-evolution', and 'Macro-evolution' is the same thing only on a larger timescale.

What I don't see is this;

If macro-evolution, is just micro-evolution occuring over and over again for a long period of time, (and also is the term that covers the massive change in variations and species from a single-celled organism to a human) - Then how come when we observe 'micro-evolution' (different variations of dogs) there is no 'new' information, i.e- the genetic code required for extra, 'non-dog' parts. The dogs are still dogs, even if they are a variation. It does not matter how much time you put into the equation because no 'new' information is there. If you add millions of years, all you will get is more variations of dogs. At least, thats how I'm intertpreting it.

In a completley friendly, informative, and civilised manner - would someone like to show me my intellectual sins on this one?

There is no "new information" because technically there is no information.

Just changes.

You don't go from A to G, you go from A to B to C to D to E to F then to G.

Then when you compare A and G you see significant differences.

Funfact: Humans have a gene for producing Vitamin C, but it is inactive. The closest extant relative we have that shares this gene is mice, also inactive in them-- and we haven't had a common ancestor with mice for 70 million years.

Originally Posted by Dizko

Timescale?

Okay so dogs becoming different species and variations of dogs over time is 'micro-evolution', and 'Macro-evolution' is the same thing only on a larger timescale.

What I don't see is this;

If macro-evolution, is just micro-evolution occuring over and over again for a long period of time, (and also is the term that covers the massive change in variations and species from a single-celled organism to a human) - Then how come when we observe 'micro-evolution' (different variations of dogs) there is no 'new' information, i.e- the genetic code required for extra, 'non-dog' parts. The dogs are still dogs, even if they are a variation. It does not matter how much time you put into the equation because no 'new' information is there. If you add millions of years, all you will get is more variations of dogs. At least, thats how I'm intertpreting it.

In a completley friendly, informative, and civilised manner - would someone like to show me my intellectual sins on this one?

Abnormal junk happens sometimes when a creature reproduces. The DNA is altered in some way, occasionally producing something completely new through abnormal means. Aneuploidy is an example of this, where there is either more or less than the normal amount of a chromosome, because the chromosomes screwed up when copying themselves. Translocation is a type of chromosome corruption where one part of the chromosome switches with another. Inversions are fun too, as they involve a chunk of chromosome breaking off, turning upside down, and reattaching.

There's plenty of ways for DNA to shift, and for brand new patterns, even extra chromosomes, to be created. When this happens during reproduction, it can create a mutation, which can be beneficial or not (Down's Syndrome is a product of aneuploidy). That's how the new stuff is made.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Oh, it's the infamous Sean Hannity strawman yet again. I have a challenge for you. Find ANYTHING ANYWHERE which shows that any atheist EVER wrote or said that there was ever nothing. I keep getting accused of believing that there was once nothing, which is just flat out not true. So please show me ANYTHING from an atheist saying there was once nothing. I am so tired of that grand chief master of all theological debate strawman arguments. Can you even tell me one atheist who has ever said it? What an absurd issue to bring up.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, it's the infamous Sean Hannity strawman yet again. I have a challenge for you. Find ANYTHING ANYWHERE which shows that any atheist EVER wrote or said that there was ever nothing. I keep getting accused of believing that there was once nothing, which is just flat out not true. So please show me ANYTHING from an atheist saying there was once nothing. I am so tired of that grand chief master of all theological debate strawman arguments. Can you even tell me one atheist who has ever said it? What an absurd issue to bring up.

So something is infinite. Could you explain what?

Originally Posted by psychology student

So something is infinite. Could you explain what?

The Judeo-Christian God, He who hates fags?

Originally Posted by Korittke

The Judeo-Christian God, He who hates fags?

Don't forget women, non-believers, and atheists!

Also, something infinite and omnipotent who is somehow unable to overcome some iron chariots... and a wrestling match (despite resorting to cheating)... etc...