| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Perhaps we've just moved from deliberate misinterpretation to outright lies here?
This could be ignorance speaking, but Richard Leakey is pretty well known, and so is Oldavui (sp?) gorge.
I'm not searching for alternative so stop with the deflection. I'm watching you morons act like a bunch of hillbilly fundamentalists. All I keep referring to is a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.
Im southern baptist and you are crazy as hell. I believe very much in God. but I believe the two can exist peacefully(science and God) your generalizations and narrow minded stereotypes tell me clearly that you know nothing about the Southern Baptist theology. Like most athiests, you take the words of a relatively few of us and use those words to dress the rest of us up in. Nonsense.
While claiming that a closer analysis demonstrates that evolution is false you have yet to cite a single peer-reviewed article that shows this.
Evolution is not a matter of faith, but of science. (As an aside, I love the implication that the Pope accepted evolution as a matter of faith, not intellectual appreciation.)
As science, anything found to be wrong in the explanation is tossed out. If you can demonstrate the failure in the theory - let the rest of the world know. Science will abandon evolution in toto if someone can demonstrate that it conclusively fails.
Otherwise you simply sound like an obstinate Luddite screaming that computers don't exist because he can't find one in his house.
(By the way, the Scopes trial was about fundamentalists who passed a law making it illegal to teach the science of evolution. The law was based based upon their faith-based assertion that the language of the Bible overrules all human knowledge and study - regardless of the facts.
Fundamentalists are still trying to have their religious beliefs taught, calling it "intelligent design," claiming it is a valid scientific theory - even though it is founded solely in faith, not facts. There is no intelligence behind this argument.)
Spoken like a true, "Southern Baptist!" No offense, Teddy.
I know what the fucking Monkey Trial was about. Did you miss my kangaroo reference? It ended up with evolution in the classroom, "nitwit". That's what it was for. To get evolution into the classroom. It got into the classroom. The classroom. Public classrooms. It wasn't the science that got it into the classrooms. It was the judicial system that got into the classroom. The science did not and still not stands alone.
Y-A-W-N, Lamont.
That's what I'm looking for. Running out of cartoons?
Hey, Lamemont, tell me, do you think Obama's health-care bill had "death panels"? Do you think Obama is Muslim? Was he born in Hawaii? Is the granite in my back yard only 6000 years old? Did the "great flood" create the Grand Canyon? Is "Intellegent Design" why we have an appendix, why our procreation systems are so finiky and prone to malfunction, why our sugar-control mechanism is unstable and prone malfunction? Why is our retina set up backwards? Why will our ears only cope with 1/1,000'th of one atmosphere in sound pressure level in the 100-20kHz range without taking damage?
Is that the kind of "intellegence" you think made us, Lamemont?
I wouldn't have any problems with religious studies being taught in school, along with evolution theories. I'm not a religious person, but if taught in a historical context, along with the social studies that is very much a part of human events, I would think it very worthy of teaching in school.
When I was a kid in High School, we had Bible Study as an elective. Being curious, I looked up my old High School and sure enough, it's still being offered.
I don't give a fuck about intelligent design. I'm asking about evolution and why you morons are acting no different than those Christian fundamentalists you think fuck things up so much. You're really no better than they seem to be. You're fucking things up no different than the fundamentalists. You're not accomplishing a damn thing and that's for sure. So, projection is your defense. Big shit. It's a shortcoming. I use it too. The difference being I know when I'm using it. What's your fucking excuse JJ? You're a natural selection hillbilly that can't play the banjo. Big fucking deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
Poor, Lamont. Nothing to say on topic so now he shifts to ad hominem. When do the homosexual rape references start?
Wrong again.
The trial ended with the teacher violating the statute. He was convicted of illegally teaching evolution.
That is, the result of the trial was to keep the science of evolutionary theory out of the classroom solely because it offended a group of religious fundamentalists.
This is exactly the opposite of what you assert.
Facts can be such a pain; they get in the way of what one wants to believe. Just like fossils.
P.S. Still waiting for those killer facts that disprove evolutionary theory.
He stated he never taught it. He begged people to testify against him. Did you not read the trial. No, of course not. You read something on the.... Internet....
It was the beginning of evolution being taught in public school biology classes. It is this court case and several others. If the science doesn't work well just take it court. Let a judge decide. BTW, judges are from kangaroos.
Also, the verdict was overturned. Jesus Fucking Christ!
You never even heard of the trial before. It's news to you.
I'm still waiting on the facts. The jury is still out.
Pretty obvious that you just don't know what you're talking about then, because the choice is pretty much forced in this case.
Of course, you could just be somebody who hates stereophile, hates audio, and hates people who talk about it, who is here to create trouble, too.
On the surface those would appear to be relatively valid points.
The presumption that any "creator" is necessarily benign, infallible and all loving is one of the most wishful superstitions the religious have managed to shoehorn into their various belief systems. Attempting to use undeniable evidence we find ourselves in an imperfect universe as proof there is no 'creator' doesn't hold either . Back to square one kiddies.
This is what I'm looking for. Now you have completely run out of answers.
Only on a procedural error, not on the facts.
There is nothing about the case or the statue which encouraged the teaching of evolution in schools. In fact, the statute prohibited teaching evolution. Directly contrary to your argument the fundamentalists tried to use the legal system to prevent science from being taught.
Again, ad hominem and complete nonsense - assumption and irrelevant even if true. C'mon, Lamont.
What jury? The experts in biology, geography, physics, medicine, etc. all accept evolution as correct and well-supported by the facts. You've been spoon-fed the facts but refuse to look at them.
And what is your argument? It keeps morphing from post to post. You have tried there is no evidence, there is no fossil record, I received a crummy education therefore evolution is suspect, it is a matter of faith, the courts require teaching of evolution, you are a bunch of Hillbillies, the facts prove that evolution is wrong.
All shot down. Easily.
So what's your position?
You don't like science? Facts disturb you? You are a young earth creationist and cannot reconcile science with your belief structure?
End the charade and take a position.
Agreed.
Both approaches are inherently suspect.
At this point Lamont, I'm having trouble understanding your point.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Lamont: your position in this thread is not that you are trying to prove or disprove one side or the other.
1. Instead, your only point is that the theory of evolution is just about as dubious as creationism?
2. Or are you complaining more that the people who stick to their guns so tightly about evolution b/c [you claim] their position is without enough support to be as gung-ho as they are?
If your question is really 1, I do believe science and nature have enough examples to at least prove the process of "natural selection". Lamont, do you believe in natural selection? If so, then why make people feel doubtful in theory based on scientific evidence. Its more than religion really has going for it: blind faith.
If you're really asking question 2, i guess it goes back to my point in the paragraph above. At least evolution/natural selection/Darwinian/whatever have some science on their side, more than the other side can hold on to.
Oh, and another cartoon:
A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms. Since the discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, antibiotics have been used to fight bacterial diseases. Natural populations of bacteria contain, among their vast numbers of individual members, considerable variation in their genetic material, primarily as the result of mutations. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria die quickly, but some may have mutations that make them slightly less susceptible. If the exposure to antibiotics is short, these individuals will survive the treatment. This selective elimination of maladapted individuals from a population is natural selection.
These surviving bacteria will then reproduce again, producing the next generation. Due to the elimination of the maladapted individuals in the past generation, this population contains more bacteria that have some resistance against the antibiotic. At the same time, new mutations occur, contributing new genetic variation to the existing genetic variation. Spontaneous mutations are very rare, and advantageous mutations are even rarer. However, populations of bacteria are large enough that a few individuals will have beneficial mutations. If a new mutation reduces their susceptibility to an antibiotic, these individuals are more likely to survive when next confronted with that antibiotic.
Given enough time, and repeated exposure to the antibiotic, a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria will emerge. This new changed population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is optimally adapted to the context it evolved in. At the same time, it is not necessarily optimally adapted any more to the old antibiotic free environment. The end result of natural selection is two populations that are both optimally adapted to their specific environment, while both perform substandard in the other environment.
The widespread use and misuse of antibiotics has resulted in increased microbial resistance to antibiotics in clinical use, to the point that the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been described as a "superbug" because of the threat it poses to health and its relative invulnerability to existing drugs.[11] Response strategies typically include the use of different, stronger antibiotics; however, new strains of MRSA have recently emerged that are resistant even to these drugs.[12]
This is an example of what is known as an evolutionary arms race, in which bacteria continue to develop strains that are less susceptible to antibiotics, while medical researchers continue to develop new antibiotics that can kill them. A similar situation occurs with pesticide resistance in plants and insects. Arms races are not necessarily induced by man; a well-documented example involves the spread of a gene in the butterfly Hypolimnas bolina suppressing male-killing activity by Wolbachia bacteria parasites on the island of Samoa, where the spread of the gene is known to have occurred over a period of just five years [13]
Ariel, that's micro-evolution you are describing, not macro-evolution.
The crazies are OK with "adaptation" and "micro-evolution," but you did not show those bacteria birthin' no human babies, so you are still an unblinking evolution apologist.
(1) You're having to ask these questions because of the subterfuge from others. (2) Your post is subjective as well. And (3) this is what I'm saying from Darwin's own mouth.
I'll translate it for you. He is stating he has an excuse for the imperfection of the fossil record. That it is only his view. He goes on to state that the right thing to do is to reject the the entire theory if you reject his view. I reject his view on the imperfection of the fossil record. I then "rightly" reject his whole theory.
My statement at the beginning of my paragraph concerning the variability of the Earth's climate was intimating the above statement. There is nothing in the fossil record that will support Darwin. Example, Homo Sapien. Not very old in the fossil record. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows a rapid or slow evolution to Homo Sapien. According to the fossil record Homo Sapien became man overnight. The day before he was Homo Erectus.
Now that people are starting to look like evolutionist hillbillies do you come on here with even more subjective views to add to the subterfuge like your statement about "blind faith". The subject isn't creationsim, religion, or blind faith. The subject is Darwin and the fossil record. Actually, the subject is the variability of the Earth's climate.
Man, that's some quality diarrhea of the keyboard, Lamont!
What is it you demand from the fossil record?
There are many examples of homid change over time.
If so why all the conroversy. You guys have numerous ways to say, "plenty". Everybody, as did Darwin, knows the fossil record is so imperfect that we cannot depend on it. My remark from Sapien to Erectus wasn't meant to be taken literally. But there is still not enough proof that shows beyond a shadow of doubt that Sapien is directly from Erectus. Is it blind faith again or just embracing something because it is the only alternative?
On the subject of evolution I am a Libertarian. I'm actually applying a little conscience thought. If it is so much a fact than why the controversy? I'm questioning you evolutionists no different than I would question somebody on creationsim. And so far you guys are acting no different than "them". The people you despise. My formulated opinion is morons like you guys fuck things up just as much as you feel creationists fuck things up. All you guys are a bunch of fuck ups. Evolutionists and Creationists. But I'm not arguing with a bunch of creationists. I'm arguing with a bunch evolutionists, that much to my surprise, appear to operating on their own platform of blind faith. I think you guys have covered all the ego defense mechanisms in your responses.
The controversy comes from the uninformed and/or dishonest.
There is also controversy about the earth orbiting the sun. There is controversy about the cause of AIDS.
Got a problem with those?
Ah, but for you JJ that only applies to anyone that disagrees with what you believe. But since you really don't investigate the other side you are also uninformed.
As, for dishonest? I get lied to on a daily basis in my work. I have a pretty good idea when somebody is bullshitting. You? You wouldn't know if somebody was lying to you if they had "LIAR" branded on their forehead. In fact, I consider you a liar. You rely on a mixture of truths and lies to function. In order to do that you must lie.
You aren't arguing. You are just being purposefully, willfully dumb.
If you claim there is no evidence of evolution, you have alot of denying to do.
How about starting with the idea of evolution and for it to exist, what things would expect to able to predict finding in your search to support or undermine the concept?
We can start a list:
For evolution to exist, we would require....
We would expect to see shared ways of communicating phenotypic information - a way for the organisms to pass on characteristics...like DNA or RNA, which is pretty universal.
We would expect to see this set of information be changeable, with demonstrated random alteration occurring to make the resulting organism a little different from its progenitor. We see this at a very fixed and objectively observable rate with DNA replication.
We would expect to see the genetic information of a parent thrown into a bit of random assortment for the offspring, as well.
We would expect to see failures, neutral results, and favorable results of these random genetic events. This is also well described - with both beneficial genetic mutations having been identifies, as well as detrimental ones - like when your momma birthed you!
As evolution occurs, you'd think you'd be able to compare DNA of related or unrelated organisms and be able to see similarities that have been retained and differences that have come into play over time. This can be done at a molecular level.
All of these things were considered conceptually before we could every take their measure, so the predictive value of the idea of evolution and how the biochemistry played out fit well together.
Let's see, what else do we think we'd expect to see....
Well, vestigial organs as a sign of change over time.
Things like whales with leg bones, etc....nature is full of these predicted examples.
What else?
Oh, yeah, geology.....
You'd predict that as one goes further back in geologic time, there would be a demonstrated change in the fossil record, and may even predict that the further back one goes in the strata, the further one would see change in the fauna. Pretty common.
Also, you'd expect to see this pattern almost anywhere you look, which has also been born out.
Do we really come down to Lamont needing to find that day humans emerged in order to allow any of the myriad evolutionary example to satisfy him?
Does Lamont live in a world where all these other things occurred over time, and then humans were magically created in Eden?
There is no blind faith involved, Lamont.
Think up a list of things you would expect science to find if evolution exists and then we can discuss your issues.
You gonna bark all day little doggie? You have a lot to say for somebody on the defense. I can't believe this crock of shit. Evolutionists on the defense. Fucking hilarious. Just post some sarcastic cartoons. It's science.
Dude, not on the defense, since I don't give a rat's ass what you think.
If all you can do is run around with your merkin on fire, then no worries.
Your surrender is duly noted, ya mental degenerate proof that intelligent design is an oxymoron.
Maybe you can head out and talk Hi Fi somewhere now.
Is this all?
This is mere quote-mining, straight out of the creationist websites and a long discredited non-issue. BTW, the actual quote is "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." (1st edition, emphasis supplied).
Darwin states throughout his work that the geological record, as known at the time, is fully consistent with evolution.
However, being intellectually honest, he acknowledges that the geological record of the time was incomplete and inadequate to demonstrate all aspects of his hypothesis.
Remember, this was 150 years ago.
Scientists at the time, including Darwin, recognized that geological exploration had just begun, that fossils of any type are relatively rare (very few of any type of animal or plant is ever fossilized), that the record is difficult to parse, that certain parts of the record are inaccessible, etc.
Yet they all believed that more would be revealed as geological study continued. Specifically, Darwin felt more proof of evolution would be found.
He concludes, logically, that if you do not accept the view that geological study will continue to advance - and reject that there are reasons we are not currently aware of additional fossilized evidence - you were free to reject his theory.
Since Darwin's time we have learned a great deal. Science has not stood still in the intervening 150+ years.
We have located oodles of fossils and other physical evidence consistent with Darwin's hypothesis. I have previously posted citations to thousands of articles addressing this work.
There is great irony in Lamont's misuse of Darwin's writing.
He claims that Darwin's writing is laughably treated as "scripture" by evolution's proponents.
No one here has done this, except Lamont; the core of his "argument" against evolution is treating Darwin's words as scripture.
Lamont subsequently deliberately ignores over 150 years of further study and research by thousands of scientists in everything from molecular biology to chemistry to geology.
Perhaps mere coincidence, but we have similarly learned a great deal about electricity since Benjamin Franklin studied lightning with a kite.
Sorry, Lamont, but your "argument" is simple-minded intellectual dishonesty.
.............................................
Here is the actual Darwin quote for anyone interested:
I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to subsidence being necessary for the accumulation of fossiliferous deposits thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed between the successive formations; that there has probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation is, perhaps, short compared with the average duration of specific forms; that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are those which have varied most, and have oftenest given rise to new species; and that varieties have at first often been local. All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.
Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection."
There is no controversy. Evolution is as solid in science as the theory of gravity,
The only issue is fundamentalist Christianity turned political. Young Earth Creationists are threatened by Evolutionary theory as in conflict with their faith.
As we have seen historically, fundamentalism in all its forms attempts to bury anything it sees as opposition.
Sadly, anti-evolutionists do not address the science (other than through misleading and deliberately false arguments) but rather try to prevent the teaching of science.
At least with Buddha, j_j and others I am in good, thoughtful, and often amusing company.
Excellent summation Buddha. I would add that you would also expect to see different mutations achieving the same end such as the panda's thumb compared with primate thumbs, or the fact that the eye has evolved on at least 4 separate occasions. Lamont also needs to explain why, if God designed man in His image, the octopus's eye is better-engineered than the human eye, in that the retina is in front of the nerves, hence there doesn't need to be a blind spot. Does God look like an octopus?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Don't understand you here, Lamont. There is no "other" scientific side to evolution. It is the accepted theory as it is the best explanation for the factual evidence.
If by "other side," you mean creationism, then that is a religious matter and there is no investigation required. Religion is by definition a matter of individual faith and faith requires no evidence. As in: you don't believe in evolution; I believe that it is almost time for a beer.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Are you guys through jacking each other off or are any of you going to post something in the fossil record that proves Darwin's theory. A fucking circle jerk of evolutionists.
Well, now you're just arguing like a crazy chick.
Come on, man. We've asked what the hell is it you want, along with asking for your own hypothesis and evidence.
Time to man up, if you are one.
Speaking of jerk offs, maybe you could move up to typing with two hands.
Bada bing!
Fucking octupuses. Bwhahahahahah! This is getting great!
Well, can anybody show in the fossil record each step that resulted in today's octupus? Like did he start off with two tenticles and then something made a third tenticle, here... and then he needed suction cups....here and then he need several suction cubs here... Tee hee!
Again, and again, the topic is where in the fossil record is the proof. Not the excuse but the proof.
Yeah, somewhere in the fossil record must be a bit of footage of the Caveman Dinosaur war or a monkey in the act of birthing a human, 'cause that's how fossils should work.
Since it's fossils and all, that's really old, would polaroids or black and white rock carvings of these events suffice?
Lamont, how's it going in cartoon land?
Hmmm. There are advantages to the inverted retina and the blind spot does not reduce evolutionary competitiveness for animals with binocular vision.
Or more properly, does God see the world the way an octopus does?
Kal (jes foolin)
I'm not in cartoon land. I'm in the octupus's garden.
BTW, this keeps steering towards what is my answer. First, I don't give a fuck what God does. He plays his game and I play mine. Currently, it is making evolutionist "believers" look like a bunch of goddamn Christian fundamentalists. I'm keep telling you guys. You're part of the problem. You fuck things up just as much an anyone else does. And yes, I'm sticking to the fucking fossil record until some Buddha a million years from now finds my bones and to make his bread.
What I don't understand is why there has to be an answer to why we exist. Or why the octopus exists. Or how the octopus evolved or not. I certainly don't see any scientific evidence that God exists or Darwin is correct. In fact, it has become political controversy because there isn't enough evidence for one side to clearly have an advantage over the other. All I know is it's not as easy to prove evolution as it is to explain it in a manner no different than Genesis.
This is how the whole thing started. I put in a buffer before I wrote out the rest of the paragraph. I was trolling to see if either somebody paid attention to the actual subject or wanted to go a few days on evolution.
It is much easier to go for the less threatening target in the entire paragraph. Arguing about Darwin. Fuck a bunch of Darwins. What did Darwin do for you lately? Not a fucking thing. And yet you guys argue no different than those Bible Belt Big Book Thumpers that make you want to throw up.
You know, I assume you guys took all the prerequisites before you respond to certain posts. Like actually fucking reading them.
Darwin was perpetually sea sick during his entire 5 year voyage on the Beagle. You can file that under the "useless information" heading.
I don't know if it is useless information. When I'm sick I don't feel much like studying a lizard. What is going to be interesting is that the reaction formation is on me not them. They won't read this post and fight about it some more through intellectualization. It started to become comical about the time we were relating God to how well an octupus can see. I was like, WTF? The natural variability of the Earth's climate. Go figure.
I'm one of the better Internet trolls. Stereophile readers should be grateful I'm on their side.
Here is an interesting note. I have one fish left in my aquarium. I now call him Mr. Jingles. He is a Tinfoil Barb about the size of your hand, maybe a little smaller. He has outlived all the other fish in the tank by at least five years. Mr. Jingles is now 15 years old. If I put new fish in the tank they die. I don't clean the tank much if at all. I replace the filter about every other month is all and stir up the rocks for the undergravel filter. Now, why is that Mr. Jingles 15 years old, lives in water no other fish can survive in and the average lifespan of a Tinfoil Barb is about 8 years. Is this survival of the fittest right before my eyes or does Mr. Jingles have about one year left to live?
Your busted, Lamont, you have a heart after all.
This is s fine example of Devolution. Your other fish realized life was futile and they died of boredom, although your maintenance program isn't helping, either. Mr. Jingles isn't evolved enough to give up. He's apparently entertained just swimming in the same God forsaken filthy tank for 15 years. Working the gills. Hanging on. For no reason.
I realize this doesn't explain anything. For examples of human devolution see Jackass 3D or anything with Johnny Knoxville. It becomes more clear.
Perhaps he should be renamed Albert C.
Survival of the fittest is irrelevant if he doesn't get a chance to reproduce.
Uh, oh.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Pages