LawTalkers - A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=643)

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Great. Here comes the Rawls debate.

So?

Sure, it involved one bull-headed participant, yet still I felt the conversation simply floated. The Lawtalkers Gods will ultimately smile upon it.

You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
when most people say evolution they mean natural selection as a way of changing species plus some scientific basis to the beginnings of life (ie god didn't do it). You really can't intelligently argue that NS causes species to evolve, and that is what has been proven to the extent any part of evolution can be proven- I accept this part- okay- bob moths et al.

But on the "how did things start" part there are huge gaps- how did the first cell start? there are at least theories on this, although most people in ths field will tell you its a billion to one shot- okay the world has been around for billions of years so that's possible.

But there are other parts where I can't even find a theory- how did those single celled animals become multi- celled? How did an organism with a few cells develop organ systems? Early organisms simply split- how did sexual reproduction come from that?

I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday. I am sorry but you are way off here.

1)You are correct that "natural selection" does not cause species to evolve. Natural phenomena favors certain mutations leading to change. No cause. It just happens.

2) There are people that think the earth is flat. There are people that think that the sun revolves around the earth. There are creationists. All of these people are really arguing from the same irrational position.

3) How did the first cell start? Are you kidding? In nature almost every step in this evolutionary chain still exist. Proteins to quasi- cells to simple cells to complex cells. The million to one shot was the lightning that struck the primoridial soup creating protein chains.

4) Single celled to mulitcelled - Again -are you kidding? Again in nature there is an example of every step of the way. From cooperating cells, to causally linked cells, to connected cells etc. There are strong theories on all these developments.

Answer #1- oh okay- sorry i guess you have proven it-
Answer #2- geez at least most people cite to Ty
Answer #3 dimwit- the fact that there are intermediate steps now doesn't explain how they could have first come about-

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe science started it- maybe an intergallactic cruise ship emptied it waste here and we sprung from that or maybe it was "god."

I don't know and I only pick on people who think they do when they pick on others who think they do, but different.

Science clearly did not start it. But the rest of your statement has merit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?

And here we'd gone almost a full day without bringing up Clinton.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And here we'd gone almost a full day without bringing up Clinton.

I still wonder why Chlorox 2 sales didn't go up after that whole debacle.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky

I was gone for just a little bit and look what happens. For the last time I am not Penske and my first post was yesterday.

dissent. Again, I AM not penske.

Honestly, Pensk, you seem to be protesting a bit too much, this is actually an original concept, ScienceGuy Sock. Way to keep Hank on his toes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
So?

Sure, it involved one bull-headed participant, yet still I felt the conversation simply floated. The Lawtalkers Gods will ultimately smile upon it.

You would prefer an analysis of protein chains?

I am confident we can avoid a Rawls resurrection- remember we haven't had it come back even though almost every SS post reminds us of the Veil of Ignorance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I am confident we can avoid a Rawls resurrection- remember we haven't had it come back even though almost every SS post reminds us of the Veil of Ignorance.

Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Have you read Clarke's book?

Yes - but I don't have an opinion. In a he said she said its hard to know the truth - there is always shades of Grey. I am a big fan of Dr. Rice, so I also have a strong bias. I was very interested in your exchange. The only thing I would say is that although failure is an orphan this failure had many authors.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.

Lord help us all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Lord help us all.

I think that was Hank's point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Answer #3 dimwit- the fact that there are intermediate steps now doesn't explain how they could have first come about-

It all comes down to steps. Evolution is just steps of mutation. So if you have all the steps you don't need a theory. You have a map of exactly what happened. The big mysteries, and where you need the theories, is when all the steps do not exist or there is no fossil or any kind of record of the intermediate steps.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Very funny, Mr. Origin of Species.

Ask yourself why are we here?

Did not your persona evolve in some way from whatever sock first linked to bridgeoflove.com?

Can Fluffy really claim to not have evolved from patentgreedy?

and I have been pegged as being a plated sock since early on.

So we can hardly argue that random mutation causes individual socks to develop and move on, but we can only move from what was there before.

I hardly think you would posit that gattigap could come from the sock that was blue triangle-

And so, I ask you do you believe that an entity named leagle created this place over a period of days- and that she had falses starts and needed to begin anew- does that make her creation any less miraculous?

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I hardly think you would posit that gattigap could come from the sock that was blue triangle-

Even when suggesting the negative, the risk of association and its scarring taint cannot stand. Guardez!

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
It all comes down to steps. Evolution is just steps of mutation. So if you have all the steps you don't need a theory. You have a map of exactly what happened. The big mysteries, and where you need the theories, is when all the steps do not exist or there is no fossil or any kind of record of the intermediate steps.

Spanky, Hank is a lot like my cousin who doesn't believe Americans ever walked on the moon. I can protest all I want, but because I wasn't there to see them driving around in the little golf cart, my opinion means nothing. Plus also there was apparently a show on Fox about how it was all a big setup.

I can't prove they walked on the moon, ergo everyone's opinion on the subject is equally valid and I am a condescending elitist to suggest otherwise. This is a very neat little argument and can be applied to almost any historical situation.

Unless you can show Hank polaroids of you standing in the primordial ooze as the lightining hits, you don't have a chance. But then again we know that photos can lie, too.