you lose. and please, learn how to spell the word vegetable.Originally Posted by rmcnew
you lose. and please, learn how to spell the word vegetable.
I'm not Rocky, but this is such a horribly incorrect statement I must at least attempt to correct your ignorance.
First, I'm going to assume you mean Industrial Revolution. I know of no period of time or anything that is referred to as the Industrial Evolution. However, this is a simple enough mistake, especially in this context, so don't feel that I'm making a big deal of it. This is just more of a disclaimer in case there is some Industrial Evolution of which I've never heard.
Now, on to the factual errors and misunderstandings.
A: Evolution is a scientific theory, which is not the same as the colloquial term "theory." A "theory" is effectively equivalent to a rudimentary guess based on limited information, a hypothesis. A "scientific theory" is a best fit explanation for all relevant data it attempts to encompass. Scientific theories are the result of a lot of work and consideration and are subject rigorous criticism so long as they are held as "true". Gravity is a scientific theory. However, that doesn't make it easily replaced with another theory that works completely differently.
B: Evolution does not contradict modern genetics. In fact, genetics quite confirms many mechanisms within evolution (natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc.). To say evolution contradicts genetics is to reveal ignorance about evolution and/or genetics, most likely both.
C: As you might have gathered from point A, evolution isn't non-scientific. Observations and experiments came first, then the theory was built to explain what was observed, and as new observations arise the theory is revised to be consistent with all evidence. Contrast that to the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design, which starts with it's "theory," and shoehorns, ad hocs, or just straight misrepresents data to fit with said "theory." Furthermore, it tries to "prove" itself by creating a false dichotomy of evolution vs intelligent design, then attempts to "disprove" the whole of evolution by attacking minor points. If they ever actually got something right about evolution being wrong in some area, all that would result is the theory being modified to fit the new data (as opposed to an ad hoc explanation that makes up excuses for why data doesn't fit the theory without actually modifying the theory to be consistent).
D: I recall having a point D, but I can't remember what it was now. If I recall, I'll post it later.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
I remember point D now.
D: Scientific models (theories) generally don't get completely replaced. Since they're based on actual observed evidence, each successive revision attains closer accuracy to reality.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
QFT; as far as i know not even the nutjobs in the creationist movement have tried to disparage the accuracy of evolution by comparing it to genetics. (although admittedly i'm not well versed in creationist doctrine; knowing them, they probably have done shit like this) they rather prefer to attack evolution using nonexistent internal flaws and mathematical misconceptions.
I've never seen it attempted until now, either. It'd be a pretty hard sell.QFT; as far as i know not even the nutjobs in the creationist movement have tried to disparage the accuracy of evolution by comparing it to genetics. (although admittedly i'm not well versed in creationist doctrine; knowing them, they probably have done shit like this) they rather prefer to attack evolution using nonexistent internal flaws and mathematical misconceptions.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
The Nazional Sozialists movement in Germany held evolution as a fact and activelly persecuted people who drank tee, drank alcohol, castrated those who were infirm or disabled, and killed the elderly. They did this because they believe what Darwin taught to the letter and that what you ate, drank, physically attempted to do in life would affect the quality of your children. I mind you they did this because they accepted the common evolutionists flaw, for example tthat a Giraffes neck was so long because each generation strechted its neck towards trees, and therefore each giraffe generation had a longer neck. This was essentially the basis for Darwin's theory of evolution, which not only is totally unscientific it contradicts what mendle had learned with his pea plants and what is currently known about genetics. It is also true that there is a shift in American Public Universities against evolution as an adequate means to explain the origion of all animals on earth. I took a human cultural evolution class where evolution was discussed, and it was absolutly appropiate to discuss creationism along with evolutionism as valid probably theories, not scientific facts. Evolution is not scientific fact.QFT; as far as i know not even the nutjobs in the creationist movement have tried to disparage the accuracy of evolution by comparing it to genetics. (although admittedly i'm not well versed in creationist doctrine; knowing them, they probably have done shit like this) they rather prefer to attack evolution using nonexistent internal flaws and mathematical misconceptions.
I'm not Rocky, but this is such a horribly incorrect statement I must at least attempt to correct your ignorance.To Rocky:
Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is a theory based on the mindset of Europeans of the Industrial Evolution and was founded on non-scientific principles, which contradict what is known today about genetics.
First, I'm going to assume you mean Industrial Revolution. I know of no period of time or anything that is referred to as the Industrial Evolution. However, this is a simple enough mistake, especially in this context, so don't feel that I'm making a big deal of it. This is just more of a disclaimer in case there is some Industrial Evolution of which I've never heard.
Now, on to the factual errors and misunderstandings.
A: Evolution is a scientific theory, which is not the same as the colloquial term "theory." A "theory" is effectively equivalent to a rudimentary guess based on limited information, a hypothesis. A "scientific theory" is a best fit explanation for all relevant data it attempts to encompass. Scientific theories are the result of a lot of work and consideration and are subject rigorous criticism so long as they are held as "true". Gravity is a scientific theory. However, that doesn't make it easily replaced with another theory that works completely differently.
B: Evolution does not contradict modern genetics. In fact, genetics quite confirms many mechanisms within evolution (natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc.). To say evolution contradicts genetics is to reveal ignorance about evolution and/or genetics, most likely both.
C: As you might have gathered from point A, evolution isn't non-scientific. Observations and experiments came first, then the theory was built to explain what was observed, and as new observations arise the theory is revised to be consistent with all evidence. Contrast that to the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design, which starts with it's "theory," and shoehorns, ad hocs, or just straight misrepresents data to fit with said "theory." Furthermore, it tries to "prove" itself by creating a false dichotomy of evolution vs intelligent design, then attempts to "disprove" the whole of evolution by attacking minor points. If they ever actually got something right about evolution being wrong in some area, all that would result is the theory being modified to fit the new data (as opposed to an ad hoc explanation that makes up excuses for why data doesn't fit the theory without actually modifying the theory to be consistent).
D: I recall having a point D, but I can't remember what it was now. If I recall, I'll post it later.
First of all, let me say one thing here ... I am getting pretty tired of you saying that I am ignorant of specific issues and that you are here to correct me. I also find it perticularly insulting that you do not take the time to properly research what I have myself written before making these sort of biased judgements. I did in deed mean the Industrial Revolution of the early 19th century, which for the most part was when the 'survival of the fittests' doctrine that is found in darwin's theory was first applied on a global scale to people groups. Read what I wrote above about what happened in Germany because of this bullshit. Also, If you are going to address me in what I have said, do it properly and do not be jacking around with insults.
I have no problem with this, on the other hand if it is considered a fact, then there are problems.A: Evolution is a scientific theory
Note here that you had to add modern genetics, while disregarding the fact that the whole foundation of Darwin's evolution was based on premises that are now rejected by science because it showed great ignorance of genetics. Hence, what might be called evolution today is nothing like that that came from Darwin and is not taught in schools for that reason.B: Evolution does not contradict modern genetics.
Evolution uses scientific methods, but again that does not make it a fact or show that it is nothing more than a theory, nor is it the only option to explain anything. Evolution also does not to explain the purpose of mankind, as religions do. It is there as an alternative to religions and creationism and nothing more.C: As you might have gathered from point A, evolution isn't non-scientific.
mcnew are you nuts???
refuting evolution because it was used to justify nazism is beside the point and absurd and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF EVOLUTION.
uh... what? how did it contradict mendel's findings?which not only is totally unscientific it contracts what mendle had learned with his pea plants
again, what you were taught at the community college of northwestern korea is not related to the scientific basis of evolution.It is also true that there is a schift in American Public Universities against evolution as an adequate means to explain the origion of all animals on earth. I took a human cultural evolution class where evolution was discussed, and it was absolutly appropiate to discuss creationism along with evolutionism as valid probably theories, not scientific facts.
should i bother? giving you the response you deserve to such an arrogant and moronic comment would only incense you further.First of all, let me say one thing here ... I am getting pretty tired of you saying that I am ignorant of specific issues and that you are here to correct me. I also find it perticularly insulting that you do not take the time to properly research what I have myself written before making these sort of biased judgements. I did in deed mean the Industrial Revolution of the early 19th century, which for the most part was when the 'survival of the fittests' doctrine that is found in darwin's theory was first applied on a global scale to people groups. Read what I wrote above about what happened in Germany because of this bullshit. Also, If you are going to address me in what I have said, do it properly and don not jacking around with insults.
?????????????????????????Note here that you had to add modern genetics, while disregarding the fact that the whole foundation of Darwin's evolution was based on premises that are now rejected by science because it showed great ignorance of genetics. Hence, what might be called evolution today is nothing like that that came from Darwin and is not taught in schools for that reason.
darwin did not know genetics, it's true. from that to say that a) evolution is unscientific and b) evolution today is undarwinian is beyond me.
so many misconceptions have been made over this argument. evolution is but a theory... a theory which accurately fits in to and often explains everything we know today about the origins of life (ie the fossil record) and biological processes. therefore it can be assumed as a better theory than creationism, which has absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever and exists, in truth, mainly to disparage evolution than to suggest what actually did happen.Evolution uses scientific methods, but again that does not make it a fact or show that it is nothing more than a theory, nor is it the only option to explain anything. Evolution also does not to explain the purpose of mankind, as religions do. It is there as an alternative to religions and creationism and nothing more.
Nifweed, if you are going to be closed minded and fail to properly research and consider what I have said, please stop responding to my posts.
mcnew, if you are going to be closed minded and fail to properly have a brain greater than the size of a peanut to consider my arguments and respond to them, please stop responding to my posts.
Still looking for someone mature to make comments who can do so without resorting to unnecesary and immature insultation, thanks.
What the Nazis did was eugenics. Eugenics is not evolution. Eugenics is an immoral attempt to manipulate evolution. Evolution teaches nothing about actively killing off the infirm, elderly, or "undesirables." Natural selection (a part of evolution) teaches that those that are more successful at mating will reproduce more than those who are less successful. And so more successful genes become more abundant than less successful.
Darwinism doesn't teach any kind of shit about a giraffe stretching its neck and thus the neck becomes longer. What happened is those with longer necks were able to reach food that wasn't being reached by shorter-reach animals. As a result, they had less competition for food resources, and so those with longer necks survived longer to reproduce more. Over time, short necks were weeded out.
ID and Evolution are not on equal footing. Evolution is supported by all the evidence available so far. ID is a attempt to inject religious dogma into a science class where it doesn't belong. The idea of it would be laughable if it wasn't so damn successful. There's a serious need for critical thinking skills amongst much of the American population.
I'm trying to help you improve yourself. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate it, but I'd rather try to help people grow and mature than watch them be misinformed and misled.First of all, let me say one thing here ... I am getting pretty tired of you saying that I am ignorant of specific issues and that you are here to correct me. I also find it perticularly insulting that you do not take the time to properly research what I have myself written before making these sort of biased judgements. I did in deed mean the Industrial Revolution of the early 19th century, which for the most part was when the 'survival of the fittests' doctrine that is found in darwin's theory was first applied on a global scale to people groups. Read what I wrote above about what happened in Germany because of this bullshit. Also, If you are going to address me in what I have said, do it properly and don not jacking around with insults.
What didn't I properly research? Did I fail to predict your silly straw man argument about stretching giraffes? Sorry, I was arguing what evolution actually is, not some silly thing being called evolution to make it easier to argue against.
There's not really such a thing as "scientific fact." You missed the whole point of that post. A theory is about as close to a "fact" as one can get in science. Science doesn't set anything in stone because there's the understanding that there's always more to be discovered and the models will always need refinement.I have no problem with this, on the other hand if it is considered a fact, then there are problems.A: Evolution is a scientific theory
Your exact words are "what is known today about genetics." Tell me, how is that not the same as "modern genetics"? I won't deal with the rest of that quoted portion because it's based on the same straw man I've already dismissed.Note here that you had to add modern genetics, while disregarding the fact that the whole foundation of Darwin's evolution was based on premises that are now rejected by science because it showed great ignorance of genetics. Hence, what might be called evolution today is nothing like that that came from Darwin and is not taught in schools for that reason.B: Evolution does not contradict modern genetics.
I've already explained this point above, but it bears repeating. Religious explanations for natural phenomena and scientific explanations for natural phenomena are not on equal footing. Science has error-correction built into the system and is always refining its knowledge and understanding. Religious explanations for natural phenomena are based on beliefs, and evidence is often considered secondary to faith (one of the greatest hindrance in the search for truth and understanding). ID is not and will never be scientific or equal to evolution in terms of veracity. You can't just create an explanation and say it's of equal weight to a well-established theory that's supported by all available evidence and without which biology simply stops being coherent. Evolution's possibly the most well-supported theory in all of science. It's veracity is far stronger than ID.Evolution uses scientific methods, but again that does not make it a fact or show that it is nothing more than a theory, nor is it the only option to explain anything. Evolution also does not to explain the purpose of mankind, as religions do. It is there as an alternative to religions and creationism and nothing more.C: As you might have gathered from point A, evolution isn't non-scientific.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
That's what I'm doing. However, you accuse me of not properly researching things even though it's obviously not the case.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
I am not too happy right now ... I typed out this big reply and Godaddy started to screw with the database right as I was posting.
In any case, I did research and discovered that it was another man with a theory that riveled darwins who taught that giraffes stretch their necks and it effects them. I said something else, but I forgot what.
Someone (Kristiina, hint, hint) should write more about this important topic, but this is just not how science works.
You do not refute a whole theoretical framework by citing a few specific details. Darwin was not aware of Mendel's work and at his time the mechanism of heritability had not yet been discovered, hence Darwin was wrong in many details, but our entire understanding of natural world is heavily based on Darwin's work. The theory of evolution is the central and unifying theme running through the whole of biology.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
That was Lamarck.
"Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution is a theory put forward by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, based on heritability of acquired characteristics, the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.
...
While enormously popular during the early 19th century as an explanation for the complexity observed in living systems, Lamarckism's acceptance within the scientific community dwindled following the dawn of the Darwinian synthesis, currently universally accepted as an explanation for the adaptive complexity of all life forms." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism]
On the origins of Eugenics:
"During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton noticed an interpretation of Darwin's work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase that he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[5]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics]
As you can see, eugenics was originally based on fears that seemed legitimate at the time. The Nazi's "use" of Darwinism for their own ends can't be considered part of scientific Darwinism, just as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't discredit nuclear physics as a science.
But I think you missed the point, it's not fertalizers or anything. Most of these "organic" vegtables are toxic, naturally. Poisons are organic. Vegitation create toxions to prevent animals from eating them.
.
.
don't you guys go and do anything crazy like eat vegetables, k?
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
I don't think anyone's going that far. Some vegitation is especially healthy, like tomatoes, olives, and grapes. Some are just OK. Some really aren't good.don't you guys go and do anything crazy like eat vegetables, k?
@ Rocky, just to clarify...are you saying that all or most vegetables (organically grown or not) are intrinsically and naturally toxic and are hence harmful to humans? Is there any solid evidence to support that idea?
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
On the contrary just because a certain part of a plant or a whole part of a plant may be poisonous, that does not mean there is no nutritional value in the plant. For example, raw acorns are poisonous and will destroy your liver, killing you after a few days of eating them. However, acorns are edible when you leech the tannen acid from them. Because plants are poisonous does not mean there are not ways to eat them.
@ Rocky, just to clarify...are you saying that all or most vegetables (organically grown or not) are intrinsically and naturally toxic and are hence harmful to humans? Is there any solid evidence to support that idea?
Yes, but don't take it too extremlely. Just because some vegtables produce natural toxins doens't mean you shouldn't eat them at all. It just means you shouldn't eat too much of them. Honestlt, you'd have to eat a LOT of some vegtable in one day for it to make you sick. Small amounts of toxins the body is perfectly capabale of handling. Just not *only* those. I said I eat more of a balanced diet, not soley vegtables, nor soley meat. I think that's more health then excuding one or the other.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote