O-Trap;1387749 wrote:Perhaps. It's certainly the position that I think is the strongest. However, according to what epistemological tenet are we able to say this with any level of resolution?

For example, is it not theoretically possible that the changes function much in the same way as a mathematical parabola? Much in the same way that a parabola continues closer and closer to a new "line" while never actually reaching it, is it not possible that such is true with evolutionary diversification? If a line represents species commonality, is it not possible for two groups of the same species to diversify to the degree that they end up looking and behaving dissimilarly, but with the continued ability to procreate fertile offspring?

jmog;1387882 wrote:Minor note, but the mathematical function you are thinking of is a hyperbola, not a parabola. Very similar fuctions shape wise, but a hyperbola comes closer and closer to a line at infinitim while a parabola never approaches any other shape other than a parabola.

I Wear Pants;1387776 wrote:I'm saying I've never met anyone that understands evolution who doesn't find it to be overwhelmingly convincing. I'm saying you might have to not understand what the concept is to not "believe" in it.

I Wear Pants;1387878 wrote:We understand the star cycle despite not physically viewing the creation/destruction of them.

O-Trap;1387884 wrote:Gotcha. Thanks. Haven't taken a math class in 9 years, so I don't feel bad about mixing those up.

O-Trap;1387888 wrote:This thread has devolved.

jmog;1387886 wrote:I know of many scientists, even PhD biologists, who don't believe evolution is fact.

I Wear Pants;1387903 wrote:Who? And where the fuck do they work? I mean what do they do? You obviously don't need to drop names. I'll wager they are religious like you as well?

O-Trap;1387906 wrote:I'm not sure how the two could be separated. I'm sure it's possible, but it would seem that without it, some form of design would be necessary, would it not?

One must be careful where he goes with that, though, as one might stumble into a cum hoc ergo propter hoc if they try to take that past it's correlation, though.

I Wear Pants;1387911 wrote:That's my point then. There are not scientific alternatives to evolution. The alternative I've been told is basically "lol god did it" which obviously brings even less clarity to the table. These people are thinking as theists first and scientists second.

jmog;1387868 wrote:Proof resides in physical evidence, not ideas and theories.

jmog;1387886 wrote:I know of many scientists, even PhD biologists, who don't believe evolution is fact.

I Wear Pants;1387911 wrote:That's my point then. There are not scientific alternatives to evolution. The alternative I've been told is basically "lol god did it" which obviously brings even less clarity to the table. These people are thinking as theists first and scientists second.

sleeper;1387964 wrote:Ironic you don't hold the same standard to the belief in which you LIVE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE BY. Please seek mental help. Once your children leave your vicious and abusive grasp they can still be redeemed and released from ignorance and bigotry.

sleeper;1388067 wrote:Denial. Please show us all the peer reviewed work you've done for NASA again. :rolleyes:

jmog;1388071 wrote:I'm sorry that you were proven wrong in your allegations of me the last time you turned one of these discussions into a troll/mud slinging fest. I'm also sorry you were so butt hurt by being proven wrong.

However, that does not change the fact that I have been published multiple times through grants from the NSF and NASA.

sleeper;1388082 wrote:Seriously, go to a museum once in your life and look at the fossil record. It's pretty easy to look at the "early humans" and realize that their fossils aren't very different from that of primates. I mean Christ, you wouldn't know what "physical evidence" was if it hit you in the mouth.

Time to grow up; Santa Claus isn't real either.

sleeper;1388074 wrote:

Originally Posted by jmogI'm sorry that you were proven wrong in your allegations of me the last time you turned one of these discussions into a troll/mud slinging fest. I'm also sorry you were so butt hurt by being proven wrong.

However, that does not change the fact that I have been published multiple times through grants from the NSF and NASA.

No because there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION. It's hilarious that anyone takes you seriously.

sleeper;1388082 wrote:... look at ... realize ...

jmog;1388134 wrote:Please show me which "early human" fossils you are referring to. I have looked at them all and to be quite honest, most have been shown to be hoax's/frauds by people trying so hard to find proof. From Nebraska Man to Piltdown Man, etc.

So please be specific instead of being general and giving hyperbole.

jmog;1388135 wrote:You do realize that NOTHING you said in your 2 sentences has ANYTHING to do with the post you quoted...right?