|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #32567 on CommentsLevel 240 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to goochtvi Block goochtvi Invite goochtvi to be your friend flag avatar
latest user's comments
|#42 - saw the original thread on 4chan. they called it "operati…||01/17/2012 on Oh, shut up, you||0|
|#243 - Comment deleted||01/17/2012 on Spongebob Fuck Logic comp||+1|
|#189 - **goochtvi rolls 73** imma just leave this here||01/17/2012 on Cashier humor||-4|
|#4 - no. by 'law' he means religion. he's seeing mosques and people…||01/14/2012 on derp lvl: impossibru!||0|
|#30 - got any skills?||01/14/2012 on I Gotcha Quoted 11||0|
|#382 - Comment deleted||01/14/2012 on BEST THREAD EVER||0|
|#373 - NEW Ron Paul hater ALERT! [+] (3 new replies)||01/14/2012 on BEST THREAD EVER||-3|
#381 - anonymous (01/14/2012) [-]
|#18 - the fact that this is perfectly timed with the post is amazing||01/14/2012 on The Greatest .gif I Have...||0|
|#80 - TO THE FRONT PAGE!||01/14/2012 on WTF?!||0|
|#1622 - YOU FOOL! NOW EVERYONE WILL BE TYPING IN BLUE TEXT!||01/14/2012 on Funnyjunk Guide||+1|
|#59 - no. the vast majority of it is absolutely fine. just a bunch o… [+] (1 new reply)||01/14/2012 on I remember this thread||0|
|#643 - ∆ ∆ ∆||01/13/2012 on Check Description :3||-4|
|#499 - Comment deleted||01/13/2012 on how to really hide pr0n||0|
|#31 - wtf you pussy. creepy pasta/gore or whatever is only on there … [+] (3 new replies)||01/12/2012 on I remember this thread||+6|
#59 - goochtvi (01/14/2012) [-]
no. the vast majority of it is absolutely fine. just a bunch of nerds in their 20-40s talking nerdy shtuff and arguing over religion, race and other stupid crap. the only really disgusting board is /d/. don't make judgements based on what appears on FJ, because those moments are few and far between
|#123 - Comment deleted||01/12/2012 on What? I dont even||+1|
|#122 - Comment deleted [+] (1 new reply)||01/12/2012 on What? I dont even||0|
|#152 - sherlock||01/10/2012 on Being schooled in England...||+2|
|#2972 - the lankawi bent-toed gecko. look it up||01/10/2012 on Student vs Teacher||0|
|#390 - we can all see evolution. just as we can all see the continent… [+] (22 new replies)||01/09/2012 on Student vs Teacher||+4|
#434 - LuckyStrikes (01/09/2012) [-]
Name one thing that we have seen evolve by order of natural selection.
Besides, if natural selection were true, and only the strongest survive, how can there be five different breeds of snakes living in the forest behind my house? They all have the same prey, four of them have the same methods of killing, but the timber rattlers are far superior in their hunting and killing methods. Why is it not the only breed?
#485 - frankiethekneeman (01/09/2012) [-]
You're arguing from a misunderstanding. It's not that "only the strongest survive" it's that competition for resources weed out the weakest. Survival is a binary state, either you live to fuck and pass on your genetic code, or you don't. Saying "The timber rattlers are the best snakes, why are there also copperheads?" is like saying "Doctors make the most money, so why don't we all just be doctors?" Because plumbers and auto mechanics and dishwashers all get to fuck.
As far as examples of observable evolution - French men are significantly shorter than their American counterparts, because tall men were considered more physically fit and were accepted first in the World Wars - they died in the trenches while their shorter buddies got to stay home and sire children.
Dogs are bred for desirable characteristics, and have converged into breeds.
The fossil record shows tons of evidence of a common ancestor between birds and reptiles. Specifically Archeopteryx.
Evolution isn't up for debate. It's a real thing. We can point to genetics as an indication of how the world works. No real scientists disagree with evolution - "Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms.
#510 - LuckyStrikes (01/09/2012) [-]
Breeding is forced, and therefore not natural...
Human being changing due to their environments is actually adaptation (as the species itself does not change)
You point about birds and reptiles can also be stated that humans and gerbils are similar, because of genetic similarities.
Considering that the cambrian explosion literally disproves that all life came from one single form of organism, how can you state that evolution isn't up for debate?
#584 - frankiethekneeman (01/09/2012) [-]
Breeding still proves the conceptual facets of evolution. Your argument here could be used to say that all laboratory results are moot, because they occur in a laboratory, and not in nature. It's an extremely narrow and nonfunctional view of how science works.
Evolution is the summation of several adaptations. "Species" is a distinction made up by science to aid in classification. Species classification (and the classification of new species) is a hotly contested field full of good arguments. In short adaptation is literally the same as evolution, just on different scales.
No it can't. My point about birds and reptiles is that birds and reptile share a real, common ancestor. Proven by fossil record. The exact definition of evolution. If we find a common ancestor for gerbils and humans (which isn't out of the question, as we are both mammals) - then it could be used.
The "Cambrian Explosion" literally proves or disproves nothing. It's a major blip on the fossil record's proverbial radar, and sparked curiosity because of its implications, as any good scientific find should. But it's not really an explosion. Continued research shows that the fossil record is incomplete, many of the lifeforms considered "spontaneous" actually do have ancestors. It also shows that diversification didn't "explode" - it happened smoothly. There are dozens of perfectly applicable theories. The "Cambrian Explosion" is not a proof, it is a puzzle. A point of debate. A point of debate that Creationists successfully brought into the public eye without a full understanding of what was happening. Perfect case of confirmation bias.
#1843 - LuckyStrikes (01/09/2012) [-]
So your statement that the cambrian explosion, which shows that there was no complex live before a certain point in earths timeline, and then suddenly there was a vast expansion, which would've taken millions of years according to the theory of evolution, into many hundreds of species of complex, multicellular organisms which didn't exist in the slightest form beforehand says nothing about disproving the theory of evolution?
#3003 - frankiethekneeman (01/10/2012) [-]
Well, kind of. You're using the initial understanding of the "Cambrian Explosion", and not realizing further research into the subject. First of all, the Cambrian period is 50 million years long, plenty of time to account for diversification of species.
Also, the discovery of the "Cambrian Explosion" led to further investigation of the time periods surrounding it. Briefly:
Pre-Cambrian life has been shown to be significantly more complex than previously imagined.
The "Explosion" has been shown to be much, much smoother than originally though.
Fossilization is extremely rare, and fossils are extremely fragile. Thus, as we go further back in time, the fossil record is more and more incomplete.
The sediment distribution of the Cambrian period fossils holds elevated frequency of more preservative types of sediment.
Climate changed significantly during the Cambrian period, creating impetus for much more selective ecosystems.
It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
#3042 - LuckyStrikes (01/11/2012) [-]
Is supposedly fifty million years long... The mount St. Helens explosion disproves silt scaling as an accurate source or telling geological time periods (since the silt settles in the exact same pattern, and was indistinguishable from normal silt patterns).. and Carbon dating is even less accurate since they have proven that C14 still hasn't reached the proper dissipation into the atmosphere for it to be accurate...
#698 - frankiethekneeman (01/09/2012) [-]
Actually, Darwin didn't use the term until the fifth edition of his book, ("On the Origin of Species", by the by - pick up a copy) - and you're using it incorrectly.
"Fittest" or "Most Fit" is a term of variable width. For instance: If I gave you a pool of 1000 men, and asked you to find the one "most fit" to perform a particular task, you'd return to me with a single name. If I then asked you to find, from the remaining pool of 999 men, the man "most fit" to perform the task, you'd return with yet another name. I might say to these men "Gentlemen, you are the most fit. You are the fittest." "Fittest" changes meaning depending on the pool, the task, the environment, the punishment (for not being sufficiently fit), and the number of slots taken.
Also - "On the Origin of Species" deals with the problem in terms of likelihood, the most fit are more likely to survive. Doesn't mean they will, just that they're more likely.
And you asked for me to "Name one thing that we have seen evolve by order of natural selection." Not one animal, or one species, "one thing". How about the Finches of the Galapagos (the basis for "On the Origin of Species")? Or Africanized Honey Bees?
#1884 - LuckyStrikes (01/09/2012) [-]
So what you say is that evultion isn't what evolutionists say it is. Evolution by modern definition creates advancement of the species, and is also used to explain the different variations of how a species came into existence. What you, and the other replier state is that a child is of a different genus than his parents, when in reality a few minor strands of dna are simply read differently, or placed in the order of dominence, which is not evolution, but something completely different.
#2455 - LuckyStrikes (01/09/2012) [-]
Sorry if it doesnt make sense... I'm doing this from my phone whilst at work. When i said genetics placed in order of dominenced i meant to say that the genes themselves are interpretted according to their dominance. Whether your a christian or not a compelling book to read is called signature in the cell. It takes great detail in explaining the cell and dna and how evolution doesnt explain anything that really happens in the cell or dna. I never really believed in the theory of evolution, never did think it was honest that a theory with as fluidly changing statements in its hypothesis, yet its all solid, scientific, unarguable facts... That ten days, a week, two months later aspects of it are changed because of holes found in the previous days theory.
|#42 - still badass||01/09/2012 on 30 Years later||+2|
|#165 - why is everyone freaked out by this? its ******* cool.||01/09/2012 on Oh God I Hate the Ocean||+1|
|#198 - donald...DONALD!! I DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE **** …||01/08/2012 on Idiot Nerd Girl Comp 1||0|
|#678 - **goochtvi rolled a random image posted in comment #156 at …||01/07/2012 on BUS RO DAH!||+13|
|#35 - THEN WHO WAS PHONE?||01/07/2012 on Check the Camera||0|
|#25 - hey i heard about this. Apparently they've inspired all sorts …||01/07/2012 on Big websites fight SOPA||-1|