Is there such a thing as Gender? (3 Viewers)

[Queenroot]

nerd

thx

 

[Squar3root]

and AIDS?

trying to find this quote !!

haha maybe. Big Bang has credible evidence, but it far from being the final explanation, hence theories of multiverse, oscillating universe circulating amongst some.

or they hadn't evolved yet? lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, especially when there are massive explosions of life.

If you do a quick Google search you can find many papers that support my arguments

 

[Squar3root]

 

[dan964]

If you do a quick Google search you can find many papers that support my arguments

what exactly are your arguments, I am actually trying to trace them.

 

[Flop21]

Just another note, resulting to insults is hardly a good way to argue, from either side, even if you think have the truth/correct/morally superior position; especially if they are of a personal nature. Engage with their arguments, in a nicer fashion, if you want to win them over to your position. Calling someone a bigot, delusional or "disgusting" because they don't believe in a particular position, especially as in this case a scientific position, which should be (which in reality it isn't), more easy to verify.

It might be helpful for the sake of the other user, to clarify actually what evolution is; and why is it reasonable, maybe start a thread on it; rather than just say, well he confused adaption with evolution.
(Adaptation is a subset of evolution). Evolution is a broad term covering multiple things.

"the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Side note: I will note for the observer, the version I was taught in school was supposedly Darwinian evolution, made very little reference (in fact none) to macroevolution, and in fact the version of evolution that apparently exists today is not the same (although derived) from what was taught in school; understandably.

This isn't something to argue about. Don't act like a know-it-all and imply I'm wrong when I'm not. Then maybe I would have continued to attempt to educate the person (I was happily and showing her the facts in a friendly way).

This was never an argument. The girl is so blinded by her own stupidity and stubbornness (how could she or her parents be wrong!!!? I know it's a tough one), she doesn't WANT to listen to people trying to educate her. Nor does she want to educate herself (it's not hard when you have the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips / internet). She thinks she knows better than the collective whole of scientists around the world.

It's okay to debate things in science, but only if you know your shit. Are you a scientist who is on the cutting edge of research on the topic your talking about? Okay it's okay to start questioning such things. If not, you're just being arrogant and stupid.

So nah. I'm not going to sit back after all that and make sure I don't hurt anyone's feelings. There are very little people in the world that I don't like, and these are the types of people I don't like. So sucked in if you're offended. It was intentional.

 

[Drsoccerball]

soz had to post this.

 

[sinophile]

there are people with xx chromosomes and xy chromosomes, and a few rare cases of different combos of those

 

[Squar3root]

what exactly are your arguments, I am actually trying to trace them.

My main argument is that it's not happening now. Like if we're meant to adapt to out environments why haven't we grown wings. And if we're always meant to be adapting how come there are mutations


doesn't make sense?

 

[RenegadeMx]

My main argument is that it's not happening now. Like if we're meant to adapt to out environments why haven't we grown wings. And if we're always meant to be adapting how come there are mutations


doesn't make sense?

cuz we have technology we dont need to adapt biologically anymore when we can use technology to adapt nature

 

[wannaspoon]

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

This isn't something to argue about. Don't act like a know-it-all and imply I'm wrong when I'm not. Then maybe I would have continued to attempt to educate the person (I was happily and showing her the facts in a friendly way).

This was never an argument. The girl is so blinded by her own stupidity and stubbornness (how could she or her parents be wrong!!!? I know it's a tough one), she doesn't WANT to listen to people trying to educate her. Nor does she want to educate herself (it's not hard when you have the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips / internet). She thinks she knows better than the collective whole of scientists around the world.

It's okay to debate things in science, but only if you know your shit. Are you a scientist who is on the cutting edge of research on the topic your talking about? Okay it's okay to start questioning such things. If not, you're just being arrogant and stupid.

So nah. I'm not going to sit back after all that and make sure I don't hurt anyone's feelings. There are very little people in the world that I don't like, and these are the types of people I don't like. So sucked in if you're offended. It was intentional.

What is wrong with you??? Me and my family? When did my family come into this?
First of all, I've been listening to everything you've said and actively engaging but I don't have much substance in what you say. Instead of telling me why I am wrong, you just say I'm wrong. Explain it!!!! Far out.

Sien, although he doesn't agree with me, explained what he believes and did it in a way that was not arrogant at all. Your arrogance is truly disgusting and you're completely making it seem like whatever you believe is correct. You are not open to discussion or open-minded at all.

For the text in bold, that's a major appeal to authority. First of all, no, I don't know better than the collective scientists in the world, their so-called evidence just doesn't appear to be tangible evidence and is deductions. E.g. The fossils show evidence something was there but not the history behind it. And newsflash, scientists don't have to believe in evolution, I know many and have had many science teachers that don't but have to teach it as it is in the syllabus.

I'm not saying evolution isn't true (it might be) but I don't think it should not be categorized as science, and there is a lot of faith behind evolution (and don't say that believing in God requires more faith, considering that's irrelevant). I believe that evolution is more a belief than science since it can't be proven unless you deduce. If I was to believe in evolution as 'science', there would have to be no missing links, otherwise I'm just having faith in what scientists think they're going to find in the future.

Before you respond to this, I want you to think about what I have said, why you think it is wrong and what is right. It's not that your insults 'hurt my feelings', it's just the meaning of your substance, content and argument get lost behind your assumptions of me.

As a note, I am talking about macroevolution. Microevolution is observable and is totally fine, but I don't think macroevolution and stellar evolution can be proven.

 

[Flop21]

What is wrong with you??? Me and my family? When did my family come into this?
First of all, I've been listening to everything you've said and actively engaging but I don't have much substance in what you say. Instead of telling me why I am wrong, you just say I'm wrong. Explain it!!!! Far out.

Sien, although he doesn't agree with me, explained what he believes and did it in a way that was not arrogant at all. Your arrogance is truly disgusting and you're completely making it seem like whatever you believe is correct. You are not open to discussion or open-minded at all.

For the text in bold, that's a major appeal to authority. First of all, no, I don't know better than the collective scientists in the world, their so-called evidence just doesn't appear to be tangible evidence and is deductions. E.g. The fossils show evidence something was there but not the history behind it. And newsflash, scientists don't have to believe in evolution, I know many and have had many science teachers that don't but have to teach it as it is in the syllabus.

I'm not saying evolution isn't true (it might be) but I don't think it should not be categorized as science, and there is a lot of faith behind evolution (and don't say that believing in God requires more faith, considering that's irrelevant). I believe that evolution is more a belief than science since it can't be proven unless you deduce. If I was to believe in evolution as 'science', there would have to be no missing links, otherwise I'm just having faith in what scientists think they're going to find in the future.

Before you respond to this, I want you to think about what I have said, why you think it is wrong and what is right. It's not that your insults 'hurt my feelings', it's just the meaning of your substance, content and argument get lost behind your assumptions of me.

As a note, I am talking about macroevolution. Microevolution is observable and is totally fine, but I don't think macroevolution and stellar evolution can be proven.

If I'm a piece of macaroni, what are you?

see my point???

check mate

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

If I'm a piece of macaroni, what are you?

see my point???

check mate

No, sorry, I don't get your point...

 

[Flop21]

No, sorry, I don't get your point...

i think you need to do some more research on pasta if you don't see my point

adding cheese just solidifies my argument

 

[Sien]

What is wrong with you??? Me and my family? When did my family come into this?
First of all, I've been listening to everything you've said and actively engaging but I don't have much substance in what you say. Instead of telling me why I am wrong, you just say I'm wrong. Explain it!!!! Far out.

Sien, although he doesn't agree with me, explained what he believes and did it in a way that was not arrogant at all. Your arrogance is truly disgusting and you're completely making it seem like whatever you believe is correct. You are not open to discussion or open-minded at all.

For the text in bold, that's a major appeal to authority. First of all, no, I don't know better than the collective scientists in the world, their so-called evidence just doesn't appear to be tangible evidence and is deductions. E.g. The fossils show evidence something was there but not the history behind it. And newsflash, scientists don't have to believe in evolution, I know many and have had many science teachers that don't but have to teach it as it is in the syllabus.

I'm not saying evolution isn't true (it might be) but I don't think it should not be categorized as science, and there is a lot of faith behind evolution (and don't say that believing in God requires more faith, considering that's irrelevant). I believe that evolution is more a belief than science since it can't be proven unless you deduce. If I was to believe in evolution as 'science', there would have to be no missing links, otherwise I'm just having faith in what scientists think they're going to find in the future.

Before you respond to this, I want you to think about what I have said, why you think it is wrong and what is right. It's not that your insults 'hurt my feelings', it's just the meaning of your substance, content and argument get lost behind your assumptions of me.

As a note, I am talking about macroevolution. Microevolution is observable and is totally fine, but I don't think macroevolution and stellar evolution can be proven.

You didn't express yourself well in your previous posts so I misunderstood your points lol but I see your point now haha
That is true, evidence for evolution is based on a lot of assumptions and bias, it's probably not even that accurate (not claiming to be a expert, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) But I feel that even if the theory is inaccurate, we at least got the very basics right (rip if we didn't)
Our knowledge in science is not always absolute, new discoveries alter the previous knowledge we have, but the fundamental concept is usually do not change (much) imo. I'd prefer believing evolution over creationism because there is at least some evidence backing it up. If creationism got some lit evidence that trumps evolution, I'd convert my beliefs anytime, but other than that I think it's just some make believe story book
Just my 2 cents tho

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

You didn't express yourself well in your previous posts so I misunderstood your points lol but I see your point now haha
That is true, evidence for evolution is based on a lot of assumptions and bias, it's probably not even that accurate (not claiming to be a expert, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong ) But I feel that even if the theory is inaccurate, we at least got the very basics right (rip if we didn't)
Our knowledge in science is not always absolute, new discoveries alter the previous knowledge we have, but the fundamental concept is usually do not change (much) imo. I'd prefer believing evolution over creationism because there is at least some evidence backing it up. If creationism got some lit evidence that trumps evolution, I'd convert my beliefs anytime, but other than that I think it's just some make believe story book
Just my 2 cents tho

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Yeah, and you're entitled to that belief. You will obviously choose whichever theory you believe to have more evidence or whichever you feel more inclined towards (based on your surroundings, education etc.). Thank you for being considerate and being open to discussion in a positive way

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

i think you need to do some more research on pasta if you don't see my point

adding cheese just solidifies my argument

See, you've realised that you haven't been able to give substantial information and are now resorting to illogical, irrelevant (i don't even know what to call it).
At least swallow your pride and realise your approach wasn't the best way to go...

 

[Flop21]

See, you've realised that you haven't been able to give substantial information and are now resorting to illogical, irrelevant (i don't even know what to call it).
At least swallow your pride and realise your approach wasn't the best way to go...

You're a real piece of work aren't you?

You really want me to do this? Alright let's go. Now YOU need to have the open mind and be willing to learn.

First off, let's stop assuming things about you and ask how do you think life on earth has come to be the way it is today? If not evolution, what?

Secondly, why haven't you answered my question?

How do you explain animals that seemingly appear out of nowhere down the timeline?

Thirdly, did you watch and read the links I gave you? Be honest. If no, I'll be happy to use them and quote them in response to whatever you say to help explain things.

And newsflash, scientists don't have to believe in evolution, I know many and have had many science teachers that don't but have to teach it as it is in the syllabus.

Excuse me? Please give me names of scientists that are like that. And no I don't care about your stupid science teachers who need to go back to school themselves.

I'm not saying evolution isn't true (it might be) but I don't think it should not be categorized as science, and there is a lot of faith behind evolution (and don't say that believing in God requires more faith, considering that's irrelevant). I believe that evolution is more a belief than science since it can't be proven unless you deduce. If I was to believe in evolution as 'science', there would have to be no missing links, otherwise I'm just having faith in what scientists think they're going to find in the future.

All scientific theories are based on evidence. If there was evidence that proved it false, then there you go. But that hasn't happened has it? There is evidence proving that evolution exists and has resulted in us and life around us. It's not even close to 'faith' which is something you believe in with NO evidence. Not even a little bit close.

EDIT: Also I will add, that I'd like you to respond to:

"if an animal micro-evolves 750 times, its going to be close to unrecognisable from its ancestors, which is macro evolution"

do you agree or disagree? Personally I think it's just simple logic to be able to understand if something is making slow minor changes over the years, for 3.6 BILLION years, clearly the end product is going to be a LOT different than what we started with. And if you can't put that 3.6 billion years into perspective, take a look at these graphics that may help: http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

 

[durrrrr]

The “missing link” is a non-scientific term used typically by (religious) opponents to the theory of evolution; it refers to a believed “gap” in the fossil record demonstrating the evolutionary transition from ape to man, thus establishing that human evolution is not supported by evidence (and so the theory false). This is a popular belief, which gets perpetuated in the mass media, but it is merely a myth which is uncontroversial in the scientific communities. And here are three reasons why this is so:
1. The fossil record is remarkably full of examples demonstrating the evolution of life and of humans (given how rare fossil formations are). See here. (And the principles of genetic mutation and natural selection of evolution are validated throughout the sciences of biology, genetics, geology, cosmology, and even computer science—in computational genetic algorithms and artificial evolution simulations—making evolution perhaps the most verified fact of all scientific theories. Indeed, it has been demonstrated experimentally in both plants and animals—and in fact, humans have been aware of the truth of such principles for millennia through their experimenting with dogs, breeding desirable traits and evolving various races.)
2. The theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from modern day monkeys, but rather that humans and chimps (and essentially all of life on Earth) share a common ancestry; i.e. if we rewound time back far enough, we would come to a common species from which both lines of modern humans and monkeys split from. (Furthermore, and interestingly, the fossil record demonstrates that there existed many human-like cousins to humanity, which humans perhaps killed off in competition with throughout time. E.g., see here)
3. The idea of a missing link is nonsense. To understand why this is, think analogously of the “evolution” of a human being throughout his lifetime. It is absurd to challenge the fact that a child evolves (in an informal sense of the word) into a grandparent by demanding an example of the precise moment when a child becomes old. There is no such moment! The progression from childhood to old-age is gradual, and occurs over many decades. Likewise, the evolution of humans occurred, but over much, much greater periods of time—billions of years in all. There is no single moment of humanities origin—there is no first human. And looking for such is illusory.
So, therefore, I hope I have shed some light on why the “missing link” is not a real concern of scientists. It is because it is a myth irresponsibly perpetuated by those uneducated in science, biology, and the theory of evolution itself. What is of concern, though, is the dishonest agendas of those who propagate such fallacies in the obvious pursuit, not of truth, but in the security of a dogmatic faith. Evolutionary theory is truly, truly fascinating and full of enlightening insights, and it is worth understanding correctly. (For more on evolution, I recommend simply buying a textbook on evolutionary biology; this is the best way to learn any topic.)

Also, see:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Free online version of Richard Dawkins famous book, The Selfish Gene, here
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/?gclid=COP-mJLX2LICFWdxQgodpyQArQ
And evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne’s book Why Evolution is True.

 

[wannaspoon]

In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation.

thx bye

Love how you automatically shot me down as if I was a creationist... I was not saying that I disagree with evolution theory... I was saying that both adaptation and evolution exist as individually...

What you have written is that adaptation exists by itself and can also exist as an evolutionary process...