What is it with Catholic Priests?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you putting evolution on the same level as geocentrism?

Geocentricism at least was finally disproved.

Well for starters, they can't interbreed.

How does that work for extinct species?

What do you mean? The human gene pool and chimpanzee gene pools don't overlap. They are distinct gene pools so it isn't arbitrary to say they are separate.

Ok. Give you an example. We classify stars by their spectral classes. These can be empirically measured and replicated with just a spectrometer.

All we have for species is the Linnean categorisation, much of which is speculation. We should be able to take genetic samples of an animal and from the DNA define the species this way. This would be an emprical measurement.

It would also give us a way to define when one species changes into another, by the mutation of certain genes. Again, not something that evolution does at this point in time.

Wow, DNA is a building block of life? No ****. It's not logically impossible for very genetically similar organisms to not have a common ancestor but genetics does provide support for common ancestry.

Again, you are assuming that similar organisms must be genetically related. It's possible that the could have evolved in a similar fashion, but that they have absolutely no relation to one another.

Ideas can be developed independently of one another and come to the same conclusion. The same is true of evolution.

Why proclaim yourself a "skeptic" of a scientific theory that explains numerous observations and has no competitors?

Again, for the reasons I cited. Evolutionary theory as it is currently understood makes no falsifiable predictions. Even geocentricism made certain predictions, which were eventually proven to be false.

[giblets]

What on earth do you mean by saying evolution "makes no falsifiable predictions"? There are a number of things that have to be true for evolution to be true, and if these things had turned out to be false then evolution would have been disproven.
1. Traits must be inherited in units
2. There must be a mechanism that can create new traits
3. Some traits must be more easily passed on than others
These are all well established... and there is no mechanism that limits the amount of changes that can accumulate in a gene pool, so over millions of years a gene pool can undergo dramatic changes.

Now you seem to accept this but not common descent, even though evolution provides a mechanism for how common descent can be true. There are of course a number of things that must be true in order for common descent to be true, and if these had not turned out to be true common descent would have been disproved.
1. The earth must be old. This has turned out to be true, and you accept this. 4 billion years is plenty of time for a gene pool whose members are simple, single celled organisms to accumulate enough changes to become complex, multicellular organisms.
2. A gene pool must be able to split into multiple gene pools. If this can happen then organisms from two different gene pools can have a common ancestor. This has been observed, and biologists have identified several ways it can happen.

So you can't deny the plausibility of common ancestry... and since I'm not an expert on this subject and you're incredibly stupid I'll leave it at that.

edit: I find it amusing that a guy who failed to understand the most basic concepts of a scientific field he supposedly spent two years studying in university feels he can critique evolutionary biology. It's always a marvel that the least qualified individuals are generally the most skeptical towards the scientific consensus.

[Ben Kenobi]

What on earth do you mean by saying evolution "makes no falsifiable predictions"? There are a number of things that have to be true for evolution to be true, and if these things had turned out to be false then evolution would have been disproven.
1. Traits must be inherited in units

1, proven to be true, that traits are inherited within a species.

2. There must be a mechanism that can create new traits

Also proven to be true. I'm not contesting this point.

3. Some traits must be more easily passed on than others

Now, if as you argue, traits are passed on through inheritance, and species cannot interbreed, how then do traits get passed between species?

Now you seem to accept this but not common descent, even though evolution provides a mechanism for how common descent can be true.

Yes, I do. All Mendel showed is that traits can be passed down and inherited. Darwin didn't know how this occurred, but he tagged this phenomenon he observed in nature as differentiation.

Unfortunately, we do not have observational evidence of traits being passed on from one species to another.

1. The earth must be old. This has turned out to be true, and you accept this. 4 billion years is plenty of time for a gene pool whose members are simple, single celled organisms to accumulate enough changes to become complex, multicellular organisms.

Except that through random chance, 4 billion years is insufficient time. The earth is Old, but it is not old enough. There must be something else happening.

This is why Gould rejects evolution as a slow process and argues for punctuated equilibrium, because he needs it to save the theory.

2. A gene pool must be able to split into multiple gene pools. If this can happen then organisms from two different gene pools can have a common ancestor. This has been observed, and biologists have identified several ways it can happen.

Within a species, this was observed on the Beagle. It's been known since antiquity among breeders.

So you can't deny the plausibility of common ancestry... and since I'm not an expert on this subject and you're incredibly stupid I'll leave it at that.

Ok. So because you aren't an expert that means because I disagree with you that makes me wrong? I'd like to follow the whole "great chain of being", but we have no evidence of the interrelationship of any of these jumps, many of which we know today to be entirely wrong.

I find it amusing that a guy who failed to understand the most basic concepts of a scientific field he supposedly spent two years studying in university feels he can critique evolutionary biology.

Why would you assume this was the case? Yes, I changed majors. I struggled with the math, and not the concepts, which is why my advisor wanted me to stay.

It's always a marvel that the least qualified individuals are generally the most skeptical towards the scientific consensus.

I've read the experts. I've done the research and the evidence of trait inheritance across a species has not yet been shown. Perhaps it's true, but what if this in fact doesn't happen? What then?

[giblets]

Why would you assume this was the case? Yes, I changed majors. I struggled with the math, and not the concepts, which is why my advisor wanted me to stay.

I've read the experts. I've done the research and the evidence of trait inheritance across a species has not yet been shown. Perhaps it's true, but what if this in fact doesn't happen? What then?

I know this is the case because you have shown it.
Someone who "understands the concepts" would never think kinetic energy is constant when friction exists. It doesn't matter if you "read the experts" because you're too stupid to understand it anyway.

Oh and

Now, if as you argue, traits are passed on through inheritance, and species cannot interbreed, how then do traits get passed between species?

stupid stupid stupid

[Ben Kenobi]

I find it amusing that a guy who failed to understand the most basic concepts of a scientific field he supposedly spent two years studying in university feels he can critique evolutionary biology.

I got that question right, but how would you know?

[Ben Kenobi]

Someone who "understands the concepts" doesn't think kinetic energy is constant when friction exists. It doesn't matter if you "read the experts" because you're too stupid to understand it anyway.

Wow. Really?

I guess I have to commentate out the equations. Goddamn.

F= Fm - Ff =

This is from the force diagram.

v= S

this is from the question for the speed.

Ek = 1/2 mS^2.

This is the kinetic energy of the block expressed in S.

Ef = Eo

This is the energy statement. The energy put into the system is the same as the energy that comes out of the system.

1/2 mS^2 = 1/2 3mT^2

oh ho. What's this.

kinetic energy of the block with the one weight will equal the kinetic energy of the block plus another weight. One a frictionless surface, as the question specified.

You didn't even understand what I was doing. It's all right there.

Wow, just wow.

Did you not get that the block was frictionless?

[giblets]

I got that question right, but how would you know?

This question?

Read the thread... you were horribly wrong and were mercilessly ridiculed, and then you scurried off without admitting you were wrong.

[N35t0r]

OK, so your point is that you don't believe that 4 billion years is enough for evolution to create the current diversity.

So we should take your word on it?

[N35t0r]

Wow. Really?

Did you not get that the block was frictionless?

Sorry Ben, but you are wrong.


Also, on the same post you say:

So the coefficient of static friction now is 3M(mu) as opposed to M(mu)

That alone would mean no grades for that exercise on any decent university course.

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the thread... you were horribly wrong and were mercilessly ridiculed, and then you scurried off without admitting you were wrong.

I had two of the three questions correct. I missed the third because I, (and clearly you as well), misread the question.

But I really don't care gribbler.

I earned a 92 on my physics exam. Nothing you say can or will change what I worked very hard to earn.

Yes, I had difficulty with honours physics and astronomy at UBC. I had difficulty with my math courses. I I always had As in my physics classes all the way through the program.

[Asher]

What the **** happened here?

[Ben Kenobi]

OK, so your point is that you don't believe that 4 billion years is enough for evolution to create the current diversity.

No, I don't. Not from what I've seen.

We have zero clue as to how the basics of life formed. We can kinda muck about but taking the basic chemical components, the elements, and transforming them into an amino acid chain, and even from there, building primitive life?

It's never been done.

We are asked to take on faith the current understanding as to how the process worked without any proof of such.

So we should take your word on it?

I haven't seen any theory as to the rate of evolutionary change which hasn't had a "trust me, I'm right" about it.

Nobody wants to touch this problem.

[giblets]

Wow. Really?

I guess I have to commentate out the equations. Goddamn.

F= Fm - Ff =

This is from the force diagram.

v= S

this is from the question for the speed.

Ek = 1/2 mS^2.

This is the kinetic energy of the block expressed in S.

Ef = Eo

This is the energy statement. The energy put into the system is the same as the energy that comes out of the system.

1/2 mS^2 = 1/2 3mT^2

oh ho. What's this.

kinetic energy of the block with the one weight will equal the kinetic energy of the block plus another weight. One a frictionless surface, as the question specified.

You didn't even understand what I was doing. It's all right there.

Wow, just wow.

Did you not get that the block was frictionless?

Kinetic energy will be lost because of friction between the slab and the weight placed on top of it.

Your answer: t = sqrt(S^2/2)/g
Correct answer: t = S/(3gµ)
What were you thinking?
Idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

That alone would mean no grades for that exercise on any decent university course.

That the ratios of the frictional forces is directly proportional to the ratios of the masses?

That's all I'm saying there.

If block A is twice as heavy as block B, and you drop block A on block B, on a surface with friction, the resultant frictional force will be three times as high as the original.

[N35t0r]

no. You first explicitly mention coefficient of static friction, when there's dynamic friction, say that the coefficient is three times larger, when it's the same, and you're not even calculating frictional force in there, since you're not multiplying by g.