Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.
They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.
Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.
it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.
i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.
this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.
'You' have been asked to back up your statements, and will not do it, aren't you 'projecting' onto people that are asking legitimate questions? Or do you feel unable to answer the questions and have to resort to 'intellectual snobbery'?
This doesn't require a high school diploma. Either there is absolute proof that 'evolution' occurred as men say it did or there isn't (in which it makes an entertaining 'story'). Do not show us 'where it could happen' and then tell us it did, show us. Leave your feeling out of it, don't go emotional on us, just present the facts.
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of life that demonstrate the retention of plesiomorphic or primative traits and the presence of unique derived phenotypes, or traits.
as I said before:
I hate math.
I'll have to dig up some old books and torture myself. I still don't get how we can say that increased mass doesn't increase the acceleration caused by gravitational attraction when it clearly took...
wait...
I wonder....
Anyone ever measured...
No, if the astronauts fell faster after achieving a higher jump, then should the result impact (since their mass remained unchanged you're saying the acceleration was also unchanged) have been the same as if they landed from such a height on Earth? That didn't appear to be the case from what I remember.
It doesn't make sense...
wait... has anyone timed (using something more accurate than a wristwatch) the time the objects took to fall on the moon and compared it the time they take on Earth?
That video proves only that the difference, if any, is smaller than can be measured with the naked eye. It does not address the question of whether they truly experience the same acceleration.I linked you a video on that earlier.
It's there in the whole feather and hammer drop.
What're you babbling about?I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.
They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.
Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.
Again, leave your feelings of how 'you think' it happened and show us the evidence of a group of species (plant and animal) changing (evolving) from one species to another at the same time in the same area (theoretically, there should be ALL kinds of fossils laying around to 'prove' this. Still, waiting.....
- If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[8]
Mule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mules, ligers, etc are rare
Your arguement would have more 'bite' if the animals you use in your examples weren't 'freaks', but a viable combination of two species that could reproduce more of the same
stuff falls slower on the moon.
☭proletarian☭;2179350 said:There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal.
Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.
When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.
Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.
I think you said it best when you mentioned you are horrible at math, which is how any physicist would reconcile the difference. Again, complete this sentence: negligible differences in mass are __________. (answer: negligible)First you say they fall at an equal rate, then you say I am correct and they fall at slightly different rates do to their difference in mass and the resulting difference in gravitational attraction and, in turn, acceleration.
Which is it? You're making two mutually exclusive assertions while trying to insult me as a 'science daydreamer' simply because I do better with the conceptual than with the mathematical.'
ligers can reproduceIf a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.
Physics is relative. If one car is moving 50mph at another car moving 50mph, their speeds can sum. Think of it this way. If you run towards your sitting friend at a rate of 5 units/second, and he is 10 units away, you'll get to him in 2 seconds (10U / (5U/s)). But if your friend now is running towards you at 5U/s as well, then you're going to reach him a lot faster, right? You'll meet in the middle of where you would have met him if he were just standing still.Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.
What are you talking about? Maybe you haven't heard, but there's this best selling book that has tons of evidence. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Prisoner-Azkaban-Book/dp/0439136350"]Here's a link to it. [/ame]There is no evidence of god, either
that doesn't seem to bother you.
complete this sentence: negligible differences in mass are __________. (answer: negligible)
the differences are mathematically there, but in every other way negligible.
Physics is relative
If you run towards your sitting friend at a rate of 5 units/second, and he is 10 units away, you'll get to him in 2 seconds (10U / (5U/s)). But if your friend now is running towards you at 5U/s as well, then you're going to reach him a lot faster, right? You'll meet in the middle of where you would have met him if he were just standing still.
that is a negative, ghostrider.stuff falls slower on the moon.
Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].
Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.
When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]
So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).
Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?
Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?
If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?
Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.
But running into him at 5 u/s does not result in the same impact as both of you running at 2.5 u/ upon impact, as the experiment showed.
that is a negative, ghostrider.stuff falls slower on the moon.
Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].
Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.
When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]
So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).
Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?
Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?
If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?
Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.
the difference in mass is conserved (because nothing comes from nothing, nor becomes nothing from something). it is conserved in inertia. the inertia, in proportion to the force of attraction expressed between them, is what constitutes the resistance of the moon and brick from attracting. thus the mass of the moon exerts overwhelming influence(inertia) on the attraction relative to the brick (although that is still exerted (insert your negligible here)) and the brick exhibits that same effect vs the moon, but in the time before it hits the surface, has done most (all but a negligible amount) of the moving.
because of the conservation at work, a feather exerts less force between the moon and the brick, but its inertial resistance is less by the same factor...
ouala... it falls at the same rate entirely, with no negligible factor involved whatsoever.
this conservation is not shared between velocity and mass
because the conservation defers 100% to mass, what think you of the bizarro-world conservation in a 100% velocity alternative?
in bizarro, when a heavy object falls, it does so faster
eh, I think antagon explained more of this.So I was right: more massive objects 'fall' faster.
The difference is merely negligible, as I said.
Your assertion that the hammer and feather fall at the same speed was false. I was right on the point when I said the difference was merely to small to be measured using Galileo's experiment and the naked eye.
You spent all that time trying to insult me only to declare me correct in the end.
I have not seen this experiment, but I would ask that you be specific in their findings. What do you mean by "impact"? Are you talking about impulse? What was the precise conclusion?But running into him at 5 u/s does not result in the same impact as both of you running at 2.5 u/ upon impact, as the experiment showed.
Perhaps I am misreading here, but it appears as if you are neglecting to take into account that the forces associated between the objects are still reliant on their masses, whereas the earth mass causes a larger force. So you are right in stating an increase in mass causes an increase in acceleration, which is why gravity (a force proportional to acceleration) is higher on earthI just don't see how they can fall faster on the moon than on earth unless the increase in mass causes the increased acceleration or how if this is the case how this does no translate to 'more massive objects accelerate towards eachother more quickly' or 'more massive objects fall faster'.
I have not seen this experiment, but I would ask that you be specific in their findings. What do you mean by "impact"? Are you talking about impulse? What was the precise conclusion?
Hence, more massive objects do, in fact, gravitate towards eachother ('fall') at with greater acceleration and speed (faster). So you are right in stating an increase in mass causes an increase in acceleration,
it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.
i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.
this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.
'You' have been asked to back up your statements, and will not do it, aren't you 'projecting' onto people that are asking legitimate questions? Or do you feel unable to answer the questions and have to resort to 'intellectual snobbery'?
This doesn't require a high school diploma. Either there is absolute proof that 'evolution' occurred as men say it did or there isn't (in which it makes an entertaining 'story'). Do not show us 'where it could happen' and then tell us it did, show us. Leave your feeling out of it, don't go emotional on us, just present the facts.
ignoring is the root of ignorance, logic. ive espoused bible verses, linked to transitional fossils and educated confused folks like frazzled that they've misunderstood what they feel is the way genetics works when it doesnt. not being able to absorb that and make a specific argument related to what i've presesnted, such as neither you nor your frazzled have managed, is, perhaps, compromised by your lacking education, whether at school or specific to the bible or evolution.
what say you that God created all of us and everything long after the creation story ps:139? what say you that he created the garden after He rested gen:3?
those are simple questions which challenge your nonsense about God 'finishing' or whatever that argument is worth.
_________
what say you about eryops megacephalus, and fossils of this creature which are termed transitional, not by some make-believe creationist definition which disavows the way genes work, but this one, which incidentally comes from my highschool biology textbook:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of life that demonstrate the retention of plesiomorphic or primative traits and the presence of unique derived phenotypes, or traits.
this is the best definition i could find from the term. the wiki one uses the term 'evolution' in it, while this one does not. can you argue that there are no transitional fossils without changing the definition? can you challenge the definition itself?
_________
lastly, can you answer these questions or would you ignore their implications?
- If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.
They can. Hence the aforementioned ligers.
Do try to keep up.
And once again I throw out something to confuse those with a simplistic conception:According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[8]
Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mules, ligers, etc are rare
Mules aren't really all that rare
Your arguement would have more 'bite' if the animals you use in your examples weren't 'freaks', but a viable combination of two species that could reproduce more of the same
They have bred back into the parent species.
Why do you antievolutionst religious idiots refuse to gain any comprehension of the subject before making fools of yourselves?
If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened
While you are calling us 'fools', you are not providing conclusive, absolute evidence that evolution ever happened.