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

[SlowwHand]

The nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus).

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are you a bad Catholic? The official church position is basically one of accepting the validity of the theory according to Pope John Paul II.

Well, it's not quite that simple. But here goes:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing"

Ex nihilo, nihil sunt. Or "from nothing, nothing comes". The universe is created by God.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

The Church says the why, it doesn't determine the how. All the Church says is that evolution is 'not contrary' to what the Catholic church believes, which is different from saying that it is infalliably true.

I'm a bit weird on this question - as I don't think the scientific evidence in favor of the present synthesis is really all that compelling.

[giblets]

I'm amazed that anyone wastes this much time on this idiot's poorly formed, slapped together opinions regarding a scientific subject. 10/10 trolling

[Dr Strangelove]

Of course women are biologicaly suited to be barefoot. We're all biologically suited to be barefoot. We didn't evolve with shoes, shoes came later. As far as being pregnant in the kitchen, when you're pregnant you're pregnant in pretty much pregnant in any room in the house you happen to be in.

[N35t0r]

I've not read enough to even know which side you're arguing on, but that's most certainly not true. If anything, it's the opposite; Species are delineations defined by man while colors are physical properties (albeit the 'green' nomenclature is applied by man). In particular, the color green emanating from the monitor is a 510nm wavelength beam of light. Objects have colors, but of course that's somewhat different - they have the physical property of absorbing light other than 510nm light (or whatnot) and reflecting light in that wavelength, or in some combination of wavelengths that appears to be around one wavelength [more precise physics explanation coming from some resident physicist].

Really this is a good example, though; if you think about people arguing about colors - take something roughly turquoise in color, is it blue or green? You can make either argument, and they're both reasonable. That's because they are rough delineations of a spectrum that does not have strict quanta.

What's really crazy is that we can't be sure that we all see the same thing when we see a colour. If I saw the same colour seeing something green that you see when you see something red, we can't really do anything that would make this evident.


Also, magenta doesn't exist.

[kentonio]

Umm. No. Just no. I read what he wrote. He states that understanding that animals were species and divided into species and that you could use it to organize and classify living things, and that they was a theory as to how they became the way they did - species are crucial to Darwinian natural selection. He'd be the first to say so. Again, he uses the term in the goddamn title ffs.

This shows beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't understand what you are talking about. Darwin used the language and terminology of his time, yet his discovery basically reshaped the understanding of the entire world. Darwin basically had to talk about species, because in an age before genetics there were no other readily understandable tools available to him to describe this incredible process.

Not that any of this has even the slightest relevance however. Only an idiot would believe that the opinion of Darwin proves or disproves anything about evolution. That's not how science works for goodness sake.

Yes, it does matter.

The only people it matters to are stupid creationists who endlessly harp on about micro/macro because they want to believe it helps support their lies.

Good question and analogy. Colors are defined precisely by pixels. One more pixel over the end of the color range will make it a different color.

Colours have no more precise definition than species do. What exact RGB value is green? What exact genetic sequence is a cat? If that cats child is not an exact 100% genetic match for its parent, is it no longer a cat?

[snoopy369]

Kid, you miss the point here. You're right that color perception can be misleading - ie, I can think something's one color and you another, because of the function of our eyes and brain - but ultimately color is an actual physical property; we simply assign gradations to it. IE, a machine can read the color of emitted light and tell you what color something is based on the definitions generally agreed on by color scientists, or whomever would make such decisions. A single physical property defines this - the wavelength of light emitted or reflected from a light source or object. You're more than welcome to argue over whether 490NM is blue or green, but that single line you draw between the primary colors defines it as one or the other. Yes, you can define it more specifically as 'turquoise', but then you're just pushing it back - ok, is 485NM turquoise, or aquamarine? Each is easily defined, once you agree on the explicit lines in the sand.

On the other hand, species have no such explicit physical property. There simply isn't one thing, or even one combination of things, that definitively identifies something as "species X" versus "species Y". Scientists agree on a certain set of definitions - in general, a set of organisms capable of reproducing and forming new organisms of the same type that are viable and fertile - but that's not really based on their physical properties; it's more of a definition based on observation. There isn't some amount of DNA change that defines a new species, or some particular measurable physical property. It's all biology, and as such is fuzzy and vague.

Hence my argument that in one way this is a good way to see species - as a continuous spectrum, where you define lines arbitrarily that separate colors/species, based on some codified logic, but nothing that at the end of the day is really important (ie, you certainly can argue over colors; and to the extent that it's no ta good way, it's because color is more tied to the physical realm. Species is solely an organizational definition that exists to make scientists' jobs easier. Color is a real physical property (albeit the name for said color is not).

[Ben Kenobi]

This shows beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't understand what you are talking about. Darwin used the language and terminology of his time, yet his discovery basically reshaped the understanding of the entire world. Darwin basically had to talk about species, because in an age before genetics there were no other readily understandable tools available to him to describe this incredible process.

*sigh*.

Species comes from Aquinas. It denotes a term that is used to indicate the true nature of the substantial being of an object. Darwin argued that the substance of creatures could change over time. This was just as revolutionary (and for the exact same reasons), that Galileo's observations of craters was revolutionary because it indicated that the heavens themselves were not unchangeable.

Darwin's theory only makes sense if one understands that the species pertains to the true nature of the creatures. Arguing that he simply 'adopted the termnology of the time' is the same contextualist bull**** coined by the post-modernists. Darwin was a modernist. He was a rationalist. He believed that through reason, one could obtain reliable information of the world. You do not, which is why you not only don't understand what Darwin's theory was about - you deviate from it.

Not that any of this has even the slightest relevance however. Only an idiot would believe that the opinion of Darwin proves or disproves anything about evolution. That's not how science works for goodness sake.

Yeah, it is how science works. If Darwin's theory is wrong, then so is the evolutionary synthesis of today which contains his theory. Which is how a synthesis works.

The only people it matters to are stupid creationists who endlessly harp on about micro/macro because they want to believe it helps support their lies.

What lie? That transmutation of species has never been observed anywhere?

Colours have no more precise definition than species do. What exact RGB value is green?

0, 1, 0.

There. Simple. That is the definition of green according to the RGB model. 100 percent green.

What exact genetic sequence is a cat? If that cats child is not an exact 100% genetic match for its parent, is it no longer a cat?

Species have a range. That cats differ, does this mean there is no such thing as a cat species, or a dog species?

[Ben Kenobi]

On the other hand, species have no such explicit physical property

Yes, they do. It's *exactly* analogous. They have a range within the genome. We can look at the genome of an animal and tell that it is a cat, just by looking at the genetics, 100 percent of the time. This isn't even difficult with the technology today.

I am arguing that we should treat species the same way that we do colors - establish lines and definitions and apply them. That way we do have an empirical standard for cats, and dogs, whatever. The best part about that is that you could program computers to use these rules. No arbitrary human bull**** classifications based on fuzzy appearances.

[giblets]

"Species" comes from Aristotle, you twit.

[kentonio]

*sigh*.

Species comes from Aquinas.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Darwin's theory only makes sense if one understands that the species pertains to the true nature of the creatures. Arguing that he simply 'adopted the termnology of the time' is the same contextualist bull**** coined by the post-modernists. Darwin was a modernist. He was a rationalist. He believed that through reason, one could obtain reliable information of the world. You do not, which is why you not only don't understand what Darwin's theory was about - you deviate from it.

It's not 'contextualist bull****' you fool, he used the terminology and language of the age he lived in, what the hell else was he going to use? The really stupid part is that you conveniently ignore the 150 years since Origin where his discovery has been shaped and refined and expanded. You ignore it because it utterly destroys your ridiculous creationist nonsense, and whats more you know that perfectly well.

Yeah, it is how science works. If Darwin's theory is wrong, then so is the evolutionary synthesis of today which contains his theory. Which is how a synthesis works.

Darwin's theory was not wrong, he just described it in terms of species, a subjective term which makes understanding the theory much easier. You can twist and lie and try and paint this any way you want, but you just look like a babbling idiot when you try and undermine a theory that all biology is built upon.

What lie? That transmutation of species has never been observed anywhere?

I've never seen a glacier move across North America either. Origins came out 150 years ago. The idea that we should have witnessed events that take tens of thousands of years to occur, is just stupid. The fact that we've seen evolution happen however shows that once again you're just being dishonest.

0, 1, 0.

There. Simple. That is the definition of green according to the RGB model. 100 percent green.

I think you should probably go and learn how RGB values work dip****, 0,1,0 is basically black. The answer you were looking for was 0, 255, 0. The problem is that RGB is device dependant. The green you see on one device as 0,255,0 is not the same green as you will see on another device. You starting to see the flaw in your argument yet?

Species have a range. That cats differ, does this mean there is no such thing as a cat species, or a dog species?

Yes, there is no such thing in reality as a cat species or a dog species, they are nothing more than human definitions.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not 'contextualist bull****' you fool, he used the terminology and language of the age he lived in, what the hell else was he going to use?

He used it because that's how he understood what the term meant, not 'because it was the terminology of the age'. It wasn't even coined by him or his contemporaris, going back to Aquinas.

The really stupid part is that you conveniently ignore the 150 years since Origin where his discovery has been shaped and refined and expanded.

Do I? I'm arguing for stripping away the vestiges that are still there - in defining a species by appearance and not by their genome. Again, this work is already being done.

You ignore it because it utterly destroys your ridiculous creationist nonsense, and whats more you know that perfectly well.

I ignore it because it's incoherent.

Darwin's theory was not wrong, he just described it in terms of species, a subjective term

The term is not subjective. Arguing that speciation is 'subjective' concedes that Darwinian natural selection is not an objective reality. But then, you're a postmodernist. You don't care about obejective reality.

undermine a theory that all biology is built upon.

Arguing that the pillar is wholly subjective does far more damage to this assertion than I could ever do.

I've never seen a glacier move across North America either.

Umm, we have observational evidence of glacier movement.

Origins came out 150 years ago. The idea that we should have witnessed events that take tens of thousands of years to occur, is just stupid. The fact that we've seen evolution happen however shows that once again you're just being dishonest.

The fact that this is not transmutation shows that it's you being dishonest by defining differentiation and transmutation as exatly the same thing.

You starting to see the flaw in your argument yet?

You conceded that green by definition is 0-1-0 under the system you cited. proving my point that yes, green does have a definition.

Yes, there is no such thing in reality as a cat species or a dog species, they are nothing more than human definitions.

Then there's no such thing as a human species either.

Welcome to creationism.

[kentonio]

He used it because that's how he understood what the term meant, not 'because it was the terminology of the age'. It wasn't even coined by him or his contemporaris, going back to Aquinas.

Wow, that's some really stupid **** right there.

Do I? I'm arguing for stripping away the vestiges that are still there - in defining a species by appearance and not by their genome. Again, this work is already being done.

Which means nothing, because at some point someone is going to have to make a subjective decision regarding where the boundaries of those species lie.

I ignore it because it's incoherent.

The only incoherent one here is you Tinkerbell.

Umm, we have observational evidence of glacier movement.

Just as we have observational evidence of evolution. You're basically arguing that because you've never witnessed the entire journey, that it can't happen. Which is stupid.

The fact that this is not transmutation shows that it's you being dishonest by defining differentiation and transmutation as exatly the same thing.

Keep trying to twist definitions all you like, it's just another reminder of what a dishonest person you actually are. The church should be appalled at having you as a member.

You conceded that green by definition is 0-1-0 under the system you cited. proving my point that yes, green does have a definition.

So now you're actually just openly lying and making **** up? 0,1,0 is not green, it is black. Under RGB values go from 0 to 255, not 0 to 1. What you either completely failed to grasp (or more likely are just too dishonest to concede) is that as the definition changes from one device to the next, the definition is subjective. Like species.

Then there's no such thing as a human species either.

Correct.

Welcome to creationism.

Only in your dreams Skippy.

[kentonio]

DP

[Ben Kenobi]

Which means nothing, because at some point someone is going to have to make a subjective decision regarding where the boundaries of those species lie.

Here's a hint. It's not 'subjective', nor is it 'arbitrary', and it's already being done by the scientists you despise!

Only in your dreams Skippy.

Whatever creationist. At least I believe in the existence of the human species.