Customer Discussions > Science forum

Evolution is false


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 219 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 15, 2012 2:10:00 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 22, 2012 3:19:37 PM PDT]

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 2:21:22 PM PDT
False I speak english but one day I moved to compton and I started speaking Ibonics then I moved to Alabama and started speaking hillbilly

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 2:23:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 15, 2012 2:29:43 PM PDT
then I comondered me a boat and Alas! Aye speak Pirate! Arrrgh

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 2:30:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 15, 2012 2:33:01 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 2:31:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 15, 2012 2:38:06 PM PDT
We're talking about the evolution of language, you dipwad.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 2:42:13 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"The evolution of language that is."

Ge eart unriht.

[English, just not as you know it.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 2:42:37 PM PDT
False, but guys, bear beats battlestar Galactica

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 3:12:55 PM PDT
Monk says:
Can someone please explain to me why this jesus jabber is on the science forum?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012 3:13:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 15, 2012 3:13:32 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
I can't quite tell whether you're a failed Poe or just another creationist here. In the case that you're the latter...

>.However these languages don't evolve on the macroscale. i.e. spanish
>>speakers suddenly start speaking french.

Actually Spanish and French is an excellent example of languages evolving on a "macro" scale. We can trace both Spanish and French back to a common ancestral language: Latin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages
What happened, roughly speaking, is that different populations of Latin speakers settled in different areas away from each other, and the language changed from generation to generation. It changed slow enough so that people of different ages living at the same time could understand each other, but the changes were accumulative enough that eventually somebody from Spain could no longer have a conversation with somebody from France; the two languages became different enough to be considered different languages. It's not just a change in dialect; they're two different languages.

Likewise, if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of reading on biological evolution, you'd learn that evolution doesn't propose things like dogs giving birth to cats. That's not how evolution works. What happens is that populations of the same species get isolated from each other into two isolated areas, and continue to change with multiple generations until there reaches a point where the two populations can no longer be considered the same species. If you trace the ancestry of dogs back far enough and trace the ancestry of cats back far enough, you arrive at an ancestral species that's common to both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids

Oh, and the abbreviation for "for example" is "e.g.", not "i.e.". The latter means "that is".

Posted on Oct 15, 2012 3:22:43 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
The dialects of English found in our (USA) eastern coastal regions are pretty good examples of evolution by isolation.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 2:31:14 AM PDT
And the gradual change of languages over distance until you can see one morph into another is also an excellent counterpoint to "God created all languages".
E.g. the Dutch/German border region has on both sides local dialects that are a mix of Dutch and German, becoming more like the language of the country the area is in as distance from the border increases.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 5:53:20 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're too scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Creationists hope their ignorance will become popular.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 7:22:49 AM PDT
Nobody spoke German, Italian, or Spanish 5000 years ago. Those evolved within the last 1000 years or so.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:17:02 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Face palm.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 8:17:53 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Beats me.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 1:59:05 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Frylock says: There I just proved evolution false. Take that society
>Actually, you have just proven your ignorance about the anthropological and historical studies on the development of language.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 2:40:51 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 2:53:25 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>evoluiton is false
>>and it can be proven by real scientists

You keep saying things like this, but then you never back up your claims. You just make more assertions, in a format that makes it look like you're writing bad E.E. Cummings poetry.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2012 4:34:43 PM PDT
Gwaithmir says:
andthehorsewhokookachoo said: "evoluiton (sic) is false
and it can be proven by real scientists" (sic)

>And your evidence for this claim is....?

Posted on Oct 17, 2012 12:53:42 AM PDT
jpl says:
Evolution is false

jpl: Natural selection is true.

Posted on Oct 17, 2012 5:38:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2012 5:39:39 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Horsie doesn't need to provide evidence. Horsie knows that REAL scientists don't bother with evidence. They just make claims and never back them up with anything, like Horsie himself always does.

That's why Horsie's a genius and anyone who disagrees with him is committing 'logical fallacies.' Because logic tells us that everything Horsie says is always right.

--There; I've just summarized every post Horsie will ever make, on any topic.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2012 7:57:03 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
Brain Curtis said:

>>There; I've just summarized every post Horsie will ever make, on any topic.

Brilliant! Now you just need to write it in the first person, and strip out all capital letters and punctuation. Oh, and combine it to make no more than 3 sentences. I think of it as "horse haiku".

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2012 3:23:34 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2012 3:44:15 PM PDT
noman says:
"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence....However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components.

Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes (described in the box on page 30) are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions..."

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Natural Selection
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2012 8:21:58 PM PDT
S. Friedman says:
horse haiku?
Well it's certainly horse something.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  219
Initial post:  Oct 15, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions