Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Poll Do you believe in Evolution?

Shiis Girlfr-
iend

Avatar: 98447 2011-07-31 00:56:37 -0400

Level 11 Emo Kid

Shii is my favorite person ever! I love him so.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

My word! Your entire post! Everyone knows that the good lord does all this stuff.

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

I may have been mistaken, as it’s generally pretty hard to tell when someone’s just genuinely misinformed, and when they’re pretending to be misinformed.

MC Banhammer Posted:

There is NO WAY to do that for macroevolution, because a key step, “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment”, cannot be performed without thousands or millions of years for the experiment to run its course.

That’s just dumb. Seriously. That’s like saying because we’ve only observed Pluto’s orbit for 80 years, the idea that it takes 248 years to orbit the sun is just a hypothesis.

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Ricket Posted:

That’s just dumb. Seriously. That’s like saying because we’ve only observed Pluto’s orbit for 80 years, the idea that it takes 248 years to orbit the sun is just a hypothesis.

It’s a prediction based on recorded evidence and current speed. It’s not a “fact”, it’s a prediction. One with a very, very good chance of being true, if all else remains equal and nothing comes along to interfere with that prediction.

But has the common ancestor between humans and monkeys been discovered in the fossil record? Do we have any direct proof that dinosaurs became birds? I am nowhere near as convinced about these “facts” as I am about Pluto continuing in its orbit.

This is why I try to stay out of these kinds of conversations. Because from my point of view, you all sound as, to use your word, “dumb” as you’re calling me.

Amasius

Avatar: 21158 2014-04-15 12:48:22 -0400
100

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Troll

OMFG! It's in MY bum!

man-man Posted:

The real counterpoint there is the scientific use of the word theory – to be a theory instead of a hypothesis, an idea has to agree with all the evidence, make testable predictions, be potentially falsifiable but have not been actually falsified despite that.

Common usage makes it sound like a guess. That is not the way the word is used in Science™

But fundies would probably still insistently say “but it’s just a theory”, even after you patiently explain that it does not mean what they think it means, and that the theory of evolution is about as much a guess as the theory of universal gravitation. You have to be pretty willing to ignore facts to continue being a fundie.

MC Banhammer Posted:

So macroevolution, despite what man-man those “rationalists” say, will always, ALWAYS, remain just a theory. Unless of course something comes along which disproves it.

Banhammer, have you even bothered to read what man-man this “rationalist” said?

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

The part where we have observed speciation events.

Admittedly they hadn’t had enough time to diverge very much (and accordingly still look very similar), but all it takes is for a species to divide into two populations that don’t breed with each other. Add time, generations, and ideally some kind of differential selection, and they’ll become more distinct.

This supports the theory that accords with all the evidence we have from the fossil record of past speciation, and all the evidence we have from molecular biology (we can construct phylogeny based on similar genetics and it matches up with all the other evidence about relationships between species)

It all hangs together so beautifully; the morphology, the genetics, the fossils, the observation of what’s happening in wild populations and petri dishes. You really don’t have any firm ground to seriously argue against it from. So you must, logically, be either woefully uninformed (to the point of wilful ignorance) or you’re aware of all this and your post was flamebait. Idiot or troll, pick one.

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Amasius Posted:

Banhammer, have you even bothered to read what man-man this “rationalist” said?

I did. That’s what prompted me to comment.

man-man Posted:

to be a theory instead of a hypothesis, an idea has to … make testable predictions

MC Banhammer Posted:

There is NO WAY to do that for macroevolution

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

man-man Posted:

all it takes is for a species to divide into two populations that don’t breed with each other

And have we seen that happen? Or are we just looking at two different fossils and saying “it LOOKS like this happened”?

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

MC Banhammer Posted:

It’s a prediction based on recorded evidence and current speed. It’s not a “fact”, it’s a prediction. One with a very, very good chance of being true, if all else remains equal and nothing comes along to interfere with that prediction.

My point was only that direct observation is not required in science. All available evidence is considered.

MC Banhammer Posted:

But has the common ancestor between humans and monkeys been discovered in the fossil record? Do we have any direct proof that dinosaurs became birds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Even if there were no fossils at all, there’s more than enough evidence from modern genetics to come to the conclusion that we’re descended from a common ancestor.

Edit: BTW, I wasn’t calling you dumb, I was calling the idea that science works solely on direct observation of events dumb.

Ricket edited this message on 06/04/2010 5:55PM

Inconnu

Avatar: 48966 2011-07-31 19:36:53 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Camwhore

Qui est cette chienne

MC Banhammer Posted:

I am nowhere near as convinced about these “facts” as I am about Pluto continuing in its orbit.

Well, it looks like this whole conversation is neither about evolution, nor about scientific facts or methods proving it, but rather about your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge those.

This approach is most likely trolling. And I believe this bumumption has very, very good chance of being true.

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

[quote]Ricket Posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils[/quote]

Interesting article, I’ll have to read it in depth when I have more time.

Here’s one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

EDIT: [quote]BTW, I wasn’t calling you dumb, I was calling the idea that science works solely on direct observation of events dumb.[quote]

No worries, I didn’t take offense.

@Inconnu: We’ve already very well established, in the Survivor game, that what I say and what you hear are two very different things. So I’m not surprised by your conclusion.

MC Banhammer edited this message on 06/04/2010 5:57PM

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

MC Banhammer Posted:

And have we seen that happen? Or are we just looking at two different fossils and saying “it LOOKS like this happened”?

We’ve seen it happen. The cichlid fishes have strong mating preference based on colouration and markings, the ****ers speciate at the drop of a hat every time a mutation comes up that changes that.

There was also a bird species (some kind of warbler, I forget the name) where a mutant had a red breast, whereas the parent population had all black plumage. Red breasts being essentially neither here nor there when it comes to adaptive value the mutation spreads, then they start breeding within themselves. Not yet entirely, but there’s evidence that all-black males see red-breast males as less of a threat to their territory, suggesting reduced breeding between the groups.

Once that starts happening there’s a number of mechanisms that tend to push from reduced mating to complete genetic isolation, and then you have two species going their separate ways. Takes time for any real difference to build up, but it’s a start.

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

MC Banhammer Posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Is your argument “Scientists have been wrong before”? I’m not really sure where exactly you mean to go with that.

Inconnu

Avatar: 48966 2011-07-31 19:36:53 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Camwhore

Qui est cette chienne

MC Banhammer Posted:

Here’s one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

@Inconnu: We’ve already very well established, in the Survivor game, that what I say and what you hear are two very different things. So I’m not surprised by your conclusion.

It seems that this difference spreads much wider than just your words. Maybe our visual perception works in different way too. For instance I fail to see a evolution theory among the list of obsolete and sometimes medieval theories and beliefs you provided.

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Ricket Posted:

Is your argument “Scientists have been wrong before”? I’m not really sure where exactly you mean to go with that.

Kind of, yeah. No one has convinced me that macroevolution is anything more than a theory which current scientists and their followers subscribe to vehemently. I expect that some day, possibly not within our lifetimes (but I can only hope), new evidence will come along to disprove it, as happened with those other “true” theories mentioned in that article.

And now I’ve spent too much energy on this topic. Again. You (collective, not Ricket) are not going to convince me, and I’m not going to dissuade you. Life goes on.

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

COME BACK HERE, I’M NOT EVEN CLOSE TO DONE WITH YOU

The distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false one; the only difference is the application of time. If you agree that small changes can appear in some members of a species within a relatively short span of time, then how can you not also agree that large changes can appear in some members of a species across a large span of time?

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Kind of, yeah. No one has convinced me that macroevolution is anything more than a theory which current scientists and their followers subscribe to vehemently. I expect that some day, possibly not within our lifetimes (but I can only hope), new evidence will come along to disprove it, as happened with those other “true” theories mentioned in that article.

So then by what metric do you accept any scientific theory? Based on your earlier response to my Pluto analogy, I think follows that you accept the heliocentric model of the universe. How do you come to this conclusion?

Ricket edited this message on 06/04/2010 6:18PM

Bashy

Avatar: 97127 Tue Jan 06 09:47:16 -0500 2009
37

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

platypus.

MC Banhammer, how can you not believe in evolution? You said you can’t believe it because nobody’s seen it happen, but… how can you say that?

Just look at us humans! We all came from the same ancestor. But look around you! There are black people! And yellow people with narrow eyes, in fact you’re even arguing with one right now!

How can you deny what’s right in front of you?

Please don’t ban me. I intend this with humor and satire. It’s actually thought-provoking, if you think about it. Note: That last sentence was spectacular.

Bashy

Avatar: 97127 Tue Jan 06 09:47:16 -0500 2009
37

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

platypus.

Ricket Posted:

So then by what metric do you accept any scientific theory?

By this method.

“Science has been wrong before. In fact it is often wrong in that it is not always right and is often not provable. Since science has been wrong, science is not wholly right, and I therefore have an excuse to substitute whatever thinking is comfortable and advantageous for me, or at least is easy, accessible and/or expeditious to my comprehension.”

Almost all people do this to some degree, however. We are still animals, after all.

Bashy edited this message on 06/04/2010 7:32PM

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

It’s worth noting that, in other non-scientific (but evidence based) fields, we don’t always have the luxury of direct observation but can still come to a well supported account of past events. I don’t know whether you’ve heard the analogy before, but consider a murder trial:

No-one saw the suspect commit the crime, there’s no experiment to directly test whether he did it. But his fingerprints are on the barrel of a gun that matches the one used against the dead man, he can’t provide an alibi and he was seen just after the murder, 2 blocks away, running like hell and splattered with blood. So we have a theory; this suspect committed the murder. It fits the facts as best we know them. The defence could have another theory that fits the evidence just as well (maybe the real murderer held a gun on the suspect, forced him to shoot the victim, then let him run off, although the question then is why the suspect didn’t mention that). If CCTV footage or a new witness turned up they could overturn the “hedunnit” theory. What they can’t do is say “There’s a gap in your evidence, therefore the suspect was at home all night watching TV”.

To deny that evolution is occurring (macro and micro, they’re the same damn thing) is like the second option there; it doesn’t make sense of the evidence that we have, even if that evidence is limited in some respects. The first option, of an alternate scenario that’s quite similar to the original theory (in terms of what evidence we’d expect to see), that’s like the very real open questions in evolutionary biology.

For those questions, like in the murder trial analogy, we’d need more evidence to differentiate between the possible answers. Science is a great timesulative process, doesn’t claim to have all the answers all at once. What it does offer is the best working model we can come up with based on the evidence that we have so far. Personal incredulity in the suggestions of that evidence is not a valid argument unless you’ve got some observations that don’t accord with the theory.

OrsonScottCa-
rd

Avatar: 104768 2010-03-04 02:36:45 -0500
17

[Forumwarz Speakeasy]

Level 69 Hacker

P - E - D - O - S - E - X - U - A - L - !

man-man Posted:

The distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false one; the only difference is the application of time.

man-man, I agree with most everything that you have said in this thread until now. However, macroevolution and microevolution are not identical, in that macroevolution, by all indications, moves in spurts while microevolution (adaptation) is a more consistent process of refinement. An oversimplified analogy: growth in humans from conception to adulthood is a fairly consistent process, with the exceptions of two major spurts (natal cellular differentiation and puberty) where the changes are dramatic in comparison. To state that growth is a singularly linear process would be discounting the abruptness of those two periods of change; likewise, stating that all evolution looks like microevolution discounts fossil record evidence that shows that many creatures stayed (mostly) static for tens of millions of years and then made (relatively) rapid transitions/divergences/etc.

That being said, I still think the biggest problem in this thread is confusion regarding the scientific use of the words “hypothesis”, “theory” and “law”. I’d say a full half of the disagreements could be resolved by agreeing on language.

Edit: grammar fail.

OrsonScottCard edited this message on 06/04/2010 8:49PM
Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!