Do our resident conservatives and republicans truly believe women are biologically suited to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[Hauldren Collider]

Also I don't understand why Ben is taking issue with evolution. Catholic doctrine, from what I remember of Sunday school, is that god plays an indirect role, like a guiding hand or whatever, but that evolution's a real thing. Creationism is bible literalist/fundie bull****.

[giblets]

John 15:13

"No greater love hath this, a man who would lay his life for a friend."

Are you a friend? You just called me an *******.

Shouldn't friends be honest with you?

[Ben Kenobi]

Also I don't understand why Ben is taking issue with evolution.

I don't know how to explain it. It's... imprecise. It's getting better, but because of the complexity of the system, it's very very hard to get down to the point where you are dealing with fundamental forces that are actually there, and not just the constructs we use to understand things.

Case in point - what is a species? Is it defined by the genetic code? No, no it's not. What makes ultraviolet ultraviolet and not in the visible spectrum? There is a very specific definition that permits us to distinguish between any light wave. Do we have that yet in biology? No we don't.

When the most fundamental concept that the theory is based on is defined by fuzz that we can't properly measure then it's going to create problems later on.

Catholic doctrine, from what I remember of Sunday school, is that god plays an indirect role, like a guiding hand or whatever, but that evolution's a real thing. Creationism is bible literalist/fundie bull****.

I'm not a creationist. I don't believe God created the universe 6000 years ago. I have seen the evidence that we have and I have done some of that in my classwork to show how we know how these things work. I've done work with standard candles so I how how they come up with the measurement of 15 billion years and where most of the error lies in that number.

I'm also not an evolutionist. I'm not sure I buy the present explanation that species can transform into another specieis. How do we know for a fact that ancient hominid fossil today is an actual link to modern man and not a dead end?

[Hauldren Collider]

You're a ****in' moron, Ben. It's very obvious how one species can transform into another species, and it's very obvious how they can be linked, and no I'm not interested in arguing with you because

[Aeson]

The problem is that you're at the stage where the only star you can see and understand to be a star is the sun.

Astronomers have the whole picture - because that's how light works. They can see all the different stages.

Only for different stars. We assume (probably correctly) that these stars behave similarly and a certain type leads to another certain type. We generally can't observe any one star long enough (yet) to really see this happen in any specific case though. (There are some exceptions.)

It's much the same as with evolution, only we can see the changes happening all the time because they occur on a much more rapid pace.

Evolution doesn't work that way. Not only do we not understand the mechanism wrt mutations - we also don't understand the direction because we can't step outside of things and see what's going to happen.

We understand the mechanisms well enough that we can pick and choose genes and traits via breeding programs and genetic mutations. We understand how various forms of radiation can cause genetic mutations.

The analogy would be being able to observe other planets in different stages. I hope you can see my point here. When you know where other things have headed, you can better predict what will happen at home.

You seem to be confused. Evolution happens all the time. We see it all the time. We take advantage of it all the time. We don't have to see it happen on another planet, because we can see it happening in thousands of species around the world. We can even choose to direct it to our benefit.

It's fine to be skeptical about whether a specific claim of evolution is true or not. Did species X actually descend from species Y? That is difficult to prove. It's also not important. It's patently obvious that evolution has been working on all lifeforms on earth because we can see the effects even in rather short time-frames. What is important is we can use our understanding of how mutations and genetic changes do happen, to ensure the ones we want happen.

It's not evolution that's responsible for that, it's genetics. You're assuming that understanding of genetics = confirmation of the theory of evolution, but that's not the case. The actual theory makes not a single mention of genes.

Genetics is the engine that drives evolution. We can see genetic changes as they occur naturally over time. We can force genetic changes. We can observe the effects of genetic changes. We all benefit greatly from this understanding.

[Kidlicious]

Since he was ordained and married to the Church? Yes, yes, he did. He was crucified.

So he did not die for his wife. He died for what he believed in.

But you'd marry one because that is sooo empowering. Score one for alpha male Kidicious.

I should start a thread.

"which polytubby do you most associate with the term, 'alpha male'. "

Somehow I don't see 'Kidicious' as the top vote-getter.

No I wouldn't marry a ***** you moron.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's very obvious how one species can transform into another species, and it's very obvious how they can be linked, and no I'm not interested in arguing with you because

If the process is understood it ought to be possible to reverse the process. The problem is how does one know whether the process is or is not in reverse?

[Ben Kenobi]

So he did not die for his wife. He died for what he believed in.

And he, as an ordained minister was in fact married to the Church.

No I wouldn't marry a ***** you moron.

Then why are you divorced Mr. God's gift to woman alpha male king of the jungle?

[giblets]

You're a ****in' moron, Ben. It's very obvious how one species can transform into another species, and it's very obvious how they can be linked, and no I'm not interested in arguing with you because

I think he's actually mentally ill, but not stupid as "stupid" is traditionally understood.

[Kidlicious]

And he, as an ordained minister was in fact married to the Church.

That doesn't mean a damn thing. He died for what he believed in. That's something you can't understand, the difference between dying for the truth and dying for a church or a woman.

Then why are you divorced Mr. God's gift to woman alpha male king of the jungle?

I already told you. *****.

[giblets]

And he, as an ordained minister was in fact married to the Church.

Did he make any babies with the church? Some people have argued that that's what marriage is for.

[Ben Kenobi]

Only for different stars. We assume (probably correctly) that these stars behave similarly and a certain type leads to another certain typ

This is an excellent point. For a long time we didn't understand how stars work significantly well enough in order to categorize them. We didn't understand the processes by which they continued to burn. We didn't even understand that we didn't even understand this until very late as well.

Hertzsprung Russell made their first graph only after the true nature was correctly apprehended, and the correct relationship between the light spectra of a star and the connection with the chemical elements and their composition. You can't understand that unless significant amounts of work have been done to:

1, classify the stars by their spectra
2, record the spectra of a significant swathe of stars.
3, have an understanding of spectra and the connection between the spectra of a star and the composition of chemical elements.
4, have a reliable means of recording said spectra that can be done by others.
5, establish an agreed upon system that is correct. This was very late too, and was originally wrong, befor the whole system was finally reorganized. It's not immediately obvious how it all works, but Hertzsprung and Russell are to stellar evolution what Mendeleev is to the periodic table.

They conceived of a way of expressing that information into a statistical and easily understood form. Additional information has tended to confirm the patterns that Hertzsprung and Russell confirmed. If the patterns were in fact wrong, we would not expect to see a convergence of data when the surveys were expanded. Instead - we see the pattern reinforced, indicating that there is something right about their system.

In short, the ground work hasn't even been done yet for evolution to be compared. Would anyone here suggest that our current understanding of biodiversity is even close to complete?

We generally can't observe any one star long enough (yet) to really see this happen in any specific case though. (There are some exceptions.)

We can infer from statistical probabilities, precisely how long a star would stay at each age by the proportion of start actually at that age. Can we do this with evolution? Do we even understand the process sufficiently well to establish a direction of evolution?

It's much the same as with evolution, only we can see the changes happening all the time because they occur on a much more rapid pace.

We see differentiation. Darwin's hypothesis is that the two were the exact same process. My assertion is that they are not the same process. Differentiation, the changes within a speicies do not necessarily lead in the transformation of a species. Darwin made this assertion with zero evidence of the existence of genes. He provides examples of sheep breeding, etc, but what he fails to realize is that in thousands of years of breeding sheep, we have not changed the species. How do we establish a 'rate of change of mutation', based upon theoretical models, and how do we establish how environment can increase or reduce this number? We don't know. All we know is 'creatures adapt to their surroundings and become fitter to their more surroundings. Then we proceed to 'Just So Stories' as to how the camel got it's hump.

We understand the mechanisms well enough

You're still figuring out genetics - how the code works and what the code does and how changing the code changes the genes. The process by which the genes change is not well understood in terms as to how it functions or how quickly it functions. What you're doing is creating a tool box and labelling the tools. These are important and necessary steps.

We understand how various forms of radiation can cause genetic mutations.

True, but aside from that do we understand what causes them? And even better - what sets the standard?

To label x a mutation and y is not a mutation requires an understanding as to what has changed and what has not - stuff that we are just getting into now. It also requires the understanding of a template, ie, "this is the non-mutation form of this species". This is as crucial as it was identifying atomic mass to the periodic table.

It's fine to be skeptical about whether a specific claim of evolution is true or not. Did species X actually descend from species Y? That is difficult to prove. It's also not important. It's patently obvious that evolution has been working on all lifeforms on earth because we can see the effects even in rather short time-frames. What is important is we can use our understanding of how mutations and genetic changes do happen, to ensure the ones we want happen.

I am skeptical about the transmutation of one species into another as opposed to the differentiation within one species observed by Darwin. Darwin assumes that these two processes are related, but his argumentation for this connection is flawed. It does not address the point, "what if these are two different, yet independent processes?"

What if there's not just one speed on the dial but two? Two forces, and not simply one?

Genetics is the engine that drives evolution.

Yet the theory itself predates Genetics. Therefore it stands to reason that some of the presuppositions of the theory created without the knowledge and understanding of the existence of genes are in fact incorrect. What has happened is a synthesis, not a replacement.

We can see genetic changes as they occur naturally over time. We can force genetic changes. We can observe the effects of genetic changes. We all benefit greatly from this understanding.

Again, genetic changes!= evolution. The two are not equivalent unless one assumes that they are and I am questioning this presupposition.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did he make any babies with the church? Some people have argued that that's what marriage is for.

Given that his ministry was the Gentiles, you tell me. It appears that he was remarkably successful at bringing people into the Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't mean a damn thing. He died for what he believed in. That's something you can't understand, the difference between dying for the truth and dying for a church or a woman.

What if I believe the Church is a woman?

Then why are you divorced Mr. God's gift to woman alpha male king of the jungle? I already told you. *****.

One would think that someone who really was God's gift to women would be able to stay married, if, as you said, she wasn't a *****.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think he's actually mentally ill, but not stupid as "stupid" is traditionally understood.

Last bill of health was clean. So unless I've gone crazy again, I'm ok.