Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #26 - Namezone ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
Evolution is a theory. So is gravity. A theory cannot be made into law. A law describes what something does (like the law of universal attraction, that all things we know about are attracted to all other things based on their mass) and a theory describes how it does it (like gravity creating a "depression" along the fabric of space/time and drawing other depressions towards each other) I don't think the Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to be universally accepted, and i've aced two college-level biology courses on the subject. That's all i really care to say on the topic.
#188 to #26 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be shocked.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them.

0
#137 to #26 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#125 to #26 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Masters degree in biology says ******** . If you can't describe what a scientific theory is accurately, or you haven't take note of Lenski's famed empirical evidence for evolution then I doubt you have "aced 2 college level degree courses". Sit the **** down and get your head in a book if you actually want to be a scientist.
#49 to #26 - greenwithenvy ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
So like Gravity, there's no evolution in space?
0
#141 to #49 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #46 to #26 - mrtwilightsparkle (03/28/2013) [-]
This guy's right. What people don't realize is that yes, a theory is not necessarily true, but in science, a theory is practically accepted as fact, but cannot be a law, undisputed. I can't very well explain it myself, but it's worth looking up.
User avatar #57 to #46 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
Theory: possible explanation of a part of reality
Law: infinitely repeatable phenomenon

As an example, let's take Newton's third law: Every force creates an equal, opposite counter-force.
That's a law. Reality "obeys" it every time we put it to the test. Poke your finger into your desk and your desk pushes back with the same amount of force.

Now why is that? The atoms of your finger have a certain electrical charge, so do the ones of the desk. When you bring them closer and closer, they will start to repel one another just as magnets of same polarity would.
Your finger is deformed slightly and the desk surface is, too, by a few micrometers.

So what do we have here?
A law is an observation.
A theory is an explanation.
They are not the same.
0
#138 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #217 to #138 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
No, no, no.
A theory is a model of reality to explain a phenomenon, not a random confirmed fact.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Please guys, that was exactly the point I tried to make here.
User avatar #35 to #26 - rhiaanor (03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is not a ******* theory..... thats like saying my ******* hand is a theory.
User avatar #48 to #35 - Namezone ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
well kinda. Gravity, the fact that all things are attracted to all other things, seems to be a fact as far as we understand it. Gravity itself is a theory though, since we aren't totally sure HOW it works, so we can't exactly say it does, you know?
User avatar #51 to #48 - rhiaanor (03/28/2013) [-]
"gravity" itself is not a theory, we know it is there, there is no denying it unless you decide that your religion says it isnt true and is true itself. Exactly how it works is a different matter(hehe, matter) but how it works i suppose is a theory, including its own laws, but gravity itself, is NOT a theory.
#156 to #51 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is a theory. We can observe that objects are apparently attracted to each other - thus gravity is an attempt to explain why that happens, but it is not conclusively proven that the theory of gravity is what is causing that observable attraction.

We see things moving towards each other, or around each other, or in reference to each other, but don't 100% know why. That's why it's a theory.
User avatar #52 to #51 - Namezone ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
i meant to put in "The Theory of" before that second gravity, sorry.
User avatar #36 to #35 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is a theory, your ******* hand is a theory.
"You" might actually be a brain in a tank stimulated by electrical impulses and you would never know.
User avatar #38 to #36 - rhiaanor (03/28/2013) [-]
if that was true then you would never have said that! But.... what if i was supposed to see this so i didnt come to the conclusion..... WHERE IS A GUN!
#67 to #38 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
I am not sure you have any idea what his argument is if you think that you would never come to a certain conclusion because of it. His argument doesn't prevent conclusions, just states that it isn't possible to tell whether there is any reality. I can't guarantee the dog next to me is really itching it's ears. I could be perceiving things that don't exist, while others don't. There can be no reality based off of this. No where in that can you possibly come to the conclusion that "if that was true then you would never have said that!"
User avatar #98 to #67 - rhiaanor (03/28/2013) [-]
i dont think you quite understand....
User avatar #40 to #38 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
You have no hands to hold a gun with.
User avatar #31 to #26 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
"I don't think the Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to be universally accepted"

Care to elaborate why? No trollbait or funny business, I'm just straight up curious.
User avatar #72 to #31 - mylazy (03/28/2013) [-]
There are two types of evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution has plenty of scientific evidence for it. That, though, is because microevolution can happen in a rather short period of time, so we can observe it. Microevolution is more of the little changes that people believe overtime grow to a certain extent. There is much less evidence that can't be argued against in macroevolution, which is what people generally focus on as evolution. Say for example, the galapagos island finches. The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor. Well for one, a similar environment will lead to similar adaptations. Not really all that hard a belief. Then they cite how the beaks of the finches have actually changed when there is a drought. But what they ignore is that the beaks actually go back to the original size afterward. Another commonly cited piece of evidence is that different animals have similar growth patterns as a fetus. This on simply isn't true. The whole theory is based off of sketches of the stages made by a guy who completely embellished what the true fetuses looked like sometimes changing it all together. The two biggest arguments against evolution that I have seen though are the cambrian explosion. By definition, evolution must have one species change into others over time. But in a relatively short period of times, the number of species that existed skyrocketed. Evolution can't explain that. The other argument is the complication of life. Take for example the flaggellum on certain bacteria. Looks really simple right? In reality it consists of something like 42 moving parts, that each require their own very specific set of DNA to form. This DNA has to be exact and each one has a very very small chance at every coming into existence. Then each individual piece must be organized in the right place. The kicker is that none of these pieces would be worth anything...(to be continued)
-1
#198 to #72 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #213 to #198 - mylazy (03/28/2013) [-]
I did ace biology, though I don't know where I claimed that in the comment above. All the argument above is is me spewing information given to me by other people. The reason I aced biology is because I am good at doing that. Memorization you know. That is all high school biology is. I personally prefer chemistry. Much more of a fun subject. And math. That one is pretty fun too.
0
#214 to #213 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #215 to #214 - mylazy (03/28/2013) [-]
I suppose it happens. Just means I will have to research it more later. It isn't really what I plan on doing with my life though, so don't expect me to get into it too much.
0
#216 to #215 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#78 to #72 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
What a mess. You made a huge mess.   
   
"There are two types of evolution."   
No, there are not. What you mean are the observable results, not the mechanism itself, which is identical in both cases.   
   
"The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor."   
The argument is not that they look somewhat alike, the argument is that every single lifeform in this planet uses the one and only existing, always same genetical code to turn nucleic acids into proteins.   
They are interchangeable even across species and kingdom, for 						******					 sake, you can take banana-genes and put them into a turtle and they will work.   
Common ancestry? You better bet your ass.   
   
Cambrian explosion is a very inconclusive argument.   
Firstly, there might not have been such a thing as an explosive increase in species, only a destruction of the pre-cambrian fossil record.   
Secondly, it might be as easily explained as a rise in oxygen levels drastically changing the conditions of life.   
   
Forget the flagellum argument. Just forget it.   
"What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.   
   
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins."   
www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagel lum-is-irreducibly-complex.html   
   
"That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool."   
I've answered this once already today, but here we go.   
Genetic recombination. Billions of trillions of possibilities. Natural selection only kills those that turn out unfit.
What a mess. You made a huge mess.

"There are two types of evolution."
No, there are not. What you mean are the observable results, not the mechanism itself, which is identical in both cases.

"The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor."
The argument is not that they look somewhat alike, the argument is that every single lifeform in this planet uses the one and only existing, always same genetical code to turn nucleic acids into proteins.
They are interchangeable even across species and kingdom, for ****** sake, you can take banana-genes and put them into a turtle and they will work.
Common ancestry? You better bet your ass.

Cambrian explosion is a very inconclusive argument.
Firstly, there might not have been such a thing as an explosive increase in species, only a destruction of the pre-cambrian fossil record.
Secondly, it might be as easily explained as a rise in oxygen levels drastically changing the conditions of life.

Forget the flagellum argument. Just forget it.
"What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins."
www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagel lum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

"That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool."
I've answered this once already today, but here we go.
Genetic recombination. Billions of trillions of possibilities. Natural selection only kills those that turn out unfit.
User avatar #79 to #78 - mylazy (03/28/2013) [-]
Hmmm. I would have responded to 75 rather than 72, but that isn't important. Anyway, like I said, I have no source and nothing to back it up. Take it how you will, but I can't really argue against anything you say.
User avatar #75 to #72 - mylazy (03/28/2013) [-]
....(continued) alone. So, you can't argue that one piece may have formed and then another and then another, and eventually they combined. The individual pieces of the flagellum are pretty useless and may actually hurt the bacteria to have, so by evolution those bacteria would die out. In which case the flagellum would never come into existence. And this is a relatively simple mechanism. Imagine the complexity of the human body, and how many living machines that can literally only function one way would have to be created. It simply wouldn't happen. I suppose I can add one more argument since this has gone on so long. That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool. In fact it takes it away. Let's go back to bacteria again. This time let us talk about how they resist drugs. We should all know there are millions of bacteria in our body. Some of these have probably mutated--you think that means that they have grown something new...in fact it means that they are no longer producing something that the other bacteria do. When drugs enter the body that target this thing that is no longer being produced, that bacteria that aren't producing it don't die. They have lost information that the previous bacteria had, which made them live longer. Ironically, as soon as the person stops taking those drugs, the bacteria that survived because it couldn't produce whatever was targetted starts to die out, because it can't out compete the bacteria that actually produces it.


Sorry for the long post. I don't have any sources to verify these facts other than a few documentaries I watched without getting the name of them. Sorry about that too, otherwise I would put the sources down. You can either take my word for this, choose not to believe anything I have said, or research it yourself. Whatever, I don't care. I just thought I would share it.


User avatar #50 to #31 - Namezone ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
i don't believe all things came from a single ancestor that generated all by itself, to be more specific. from what i've seen in mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. i don't believe spontaneous generation could have been possible, and i don't believe living things could have increased in fitness, genetic capacity, and adapting to their environments more quickly than they become extinct. Natural Selection is the main method for genetic change, and that only removes information, never adding any. That means mutation has to be trusted to add new information, and i don't think it could add useful information randomly at a high enough rate.
User avatar #56 to #50 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
"Natural Selection is the main method for genetic change"
No. Wrong.
Selection does not change the individual's genome, it removes it from the gene pool of the species.
It can only remove what is there in the first place.

"That means mutation has to be trusted to add new information, and i don't think it could add useful information randomly at a high enough rate."

Genetic variety does not rely on mutation, but much more heavily on recombination.
From the primitive horizontal gene-transfer of prokaryotes to the complex sexual reproduction via meiosis, this is how adaption and evolution happens.
Already selected genes are recombined in a lottery of astronomical numbers of possibilities.

Selection only comes in after that, killing those who drew the short stick, i.e. some combination making them less fit.
#158 to #56 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
He already said that natural selection serves to remove genes from the pool. He specifically said it "only removes information, never adding any".
User avatar #218 to #158 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
I agree in that with him. Where is the problem?
#32 to #31 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (03/28/2013) [-]
I personally do believe in evolution but i'm just going to throw this out here, i don't think people believe this i just came up with this right now and it's kinda given me a what the **** moment.

Everything humans know, is based around what we see, or what we have found out prior, so what if our measuring of science is wrong, like something we did in the past when trying to figure out science was wrong and it just kinda ***** everything infront of it up, like if you have a bad egg and it ***** all the other eggs up.
User avatar #44 to #32 - hirollin (03/28/2013) [-]
I actually understood that and have thought about that same scenario myself.
#34 to #32 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (03/28/2013) [-]
Ok what the **** , i just left my computer to go get a snack and came back to read this. What the **** am i on about?
User avatar #39 to #34 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
I see what you mean.
Same with literally everything; there might not be such a thing as an atom, after all.

However, seeing as we have no means to reach objective truth and label our best efforts as "theory" anyway, I don't see why we would not give the idea of evolution that status.
#42 to #39 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (03/28/2013) [-]
Personally (i will try to make more sense this time) i think that people will never agree on our creation, because there will never be proof, i believe in god and evolution because i see evidence for both, however some see evidence for just one or neither.
And the day we finally find the proof of the universe, of what is the very core for our being, that is the time we stop being human.
User avatar #43 to #42 - techketzer (03/28/2013) [-]
Heh. I like that.
"The truth will set you free."
#193 to #43 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (03/28/2013) [-]
That is, unless it destroys you first.
#27 to #26 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
i feel like what something does and how it does it are one in the same.... example!

what gravity does: attracts things together based upon thier masses
how gravity works: attracts things based upon their masses
 Friends (0)