[QUOTE]Genome sequencing supports theory that all domestic breeds descend from wild rock dove.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Source: [URL]http://www.nature.com/news/pigeon-dna-proves-darwin-right-1.12334[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ironic that Darwin used pigeons to observe artificial selection..
Now through DNA analysis it confirms natural selection..
[editline] ^_^ [/editline]
I use the term [B][I]ironic[/I][/B], as it is well accepted by most that you can have diversity inside of a breed (or 'kind'), but as perpetuated by proponents of creationism, you cannot have diversity between breeds (specification).
Yet, this article demonstrates the folly of that fallacy. :v:
I thought it was pretty much guaranteed by just about every scientist ever that Darwin was right.
It doesn't CONFIRM it, but interesting nonetheless
[QUOTE=MeMassiveFag;39435228]It doesn't CONFIRM it, but interesting nonetheless[/QUOTE]
Confirm [v]: State with assurance that a report or fact is true.
[url]http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/confirm?q=CONFIRM[/url]
I hate how news articles often use sentences like "darwin was right" implying evolution by natural selection had not been previously backed up by millions of pages of scientific papers up to the point that it can be almost concerned to be an absolute truth ("almost" only because nothing is absolute in science) and that it had not been the cornerstone of pretty much all advanced biology for the last century.
[QUOTE=MeMassiveFag;39435228]It doesn't CONFIRM it, but interesting nonetheless[/QUOTE]
Your inability to accept a fact ≠ unconfirmed.
[QUOTE=MeMassiveFag;39435228]It doesn't CONFIRM it, but interesting nonetheless[/QUOTE]
An experiment is made to verify Darwins thesis in order to confirm it. If the results of the experiment cannot be directly predicted by the abstract logic of Darwins theory then the result would have been that Darwins theory remains unconfirmed. This is not the case.
The results of the scientific experiment, analysis or whatever you might interpret it has indeed been theorized by Darwin and thus his theory is scientifically confirmed.
It's annoying how religious people refute the theory of Evolution, yet are perfectly fine with agreeing with the theory of gravity, amongst others.
'Things don't just get pulled towards the earth! It must be some kind of intelligent holding!'
I find it hypocritical that they usually only target Evolution as a basis for their beliefs.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39435786]It's annoying how religious people refute the theory of Evolution, yet are perfectly fine with agreeing with the theory of gravity, amongst others.
'Things don't just get pulled towards the earth! It must be some kind of intelligent holding!'
I find it hypocritical that they usually only target Evolution as a basis for their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
It's because it has the direct ability to invalidate their creation myth, thus invalidating their 'fall', thus invalidating a need for a messiah to sacrifice for said 'fall'... [B]BOOM no more Christianity.[/B]
It's a lot more detrimental to the belief system, than something such as gravity or atomic theory..
Biology and cosmogony has directly destructive repercussions to such beliefs and cannot be consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture, or a twisted interpretation of the science.
Scripture will always win out, as it is more comforting.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39435820]It's because it has the direct ability to invalidate their creation myth, thus invalidating their 'fall', thus invalidating a need for a messiah to sacrifice for said 'fall'... [B]BOOM no more Christianity.[/B]
It's a lot more detrimental to the belief system, than something such as gravity or atomic theory..
Biology and cosmogony has directly destructive repercussions to such beliefs and cannot be consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture, or a twisted interpretation of the science.
Scripture will always win out, as it is more comforting.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily.
Before the dark ages,nearly every religion was modified according to any new technologies that contradict their religion so it doesn't contradict. Then came the dark ages and look what we have here. Religious nutjobs
Yeah fuck the dark ages...if I wanted to live in the dark ages, I'd go to Africa !
They couldn't believe their eyes when they read the theories and connected them together with their life, I dont think they're going to believe this either.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39435786]It's annoying how religious people refute the theory of Evolution, yet are perfectly fine with agreeing with the theory of gravity, amongst others.
'Things don't just get pulled towards the earth! It must be some kind of intelligent holding!'
I find it hypocritical that they usually only target Evolution as a basis for their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
But if evolution is true then I must be a meta nigger >:(
cannot be
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
That title is just misleading. Confirming a theory is something completely different than proving it.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39435786]It's annoying how religious people refute the theory of Evolution, yet are perfectly fine with agreeing with the theory of gravity, amongst others.
'Things don't just get pulled towards the earth! It must be some kind of intelligent holding!'
I find it hypocritical that they usually only target Evolution as a basis for their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
Religion wasn't even mentioned in the article. Well done!
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39435207]I use the term [B][I]ironic[/I][/B], as it is well accepted by most that you can have diversity inside of a breed (or 'kind'), but as perpetuated by proponents of creationism, you cannot have diversity between breeds (specification).
Yet, this article demonstrates the folly of that fallacy. :v:[/QUOTE]
I am uncertain as to who actually thinks that
[QUOTE=Goberfish;39436002]I am uncertain as to who actually thinks that[/QUOTE]
Micro-evolution V Macro-evolution.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39436094]Micro-evolution V Macro-evolution.[/QUOTE]
A breed is not a kind, although a "kind" is a very wishy-washy term I have never heard a kind being related to a breed
[QUOTE=Goberfish;39436134]A breed is not a kind, although a "kind" is a very wishy-washy term I have never heard a kind being related to a breed[/QUOTE]
Breed =/= 'kind', 'kind' would be species; breed is a subspecies of a 'kind'.
It's just a re-categorization to change the definitions outlined by scientists regarding biological evolution, to something more synonymous with that of scripture..
Essentially an amalgamation between science, and scripture; only where the science doesn't matter.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39436291]Breed =/= 'kind', 'kind' would be species; breed is a subspecies of a 'kind'.
It's just a re-categorization to change the definitions outlined by scientists regarding biological evolution, to something more synonymous with that of scripture..
Essentially an amalgamation between science, and scripture; only where the science doesn't matter.[/QUOTE]
Still, you'd find it very hard pressed to find a "proponent of creationism" denying "diversity between breeds"
Unless I'm thinking of a different diversity between breeds.
Could you please explain to me what you mean by diversity between breeds? I feel I am missing something.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;39435820]It's because it has the direct ability to invalidate their creation myth, thus invalidating their 'fall', thus invalidating a need for a messiah to sacrifice for said 'fall'... [B]BOOM no more Christianity.[/B]
cannot be consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture, or a twisted interpretation of the science.[/QUOTE]
I'm quite satisfied with my local religious groups.
I attend a catholic college (they even admit non-religious) and it's taught there from [B]day one[/B] not to take the Bible literally and the stories are to be viewed as parables not historic documents. The local priest even supports evolution theory and had the balls to fly to the Vatican to complain about the Church's viewpoint on homosexuality.
In short, religion [I]is[/I] slowly adapting to the modern world, just some groups are too fucking stubborn to change their viewpoint.]
EDIT: I take it all back, the devil is here [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Znx54gE.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Goberfish;39436348]Still, you'd find it very hard pressed to find a "proponent of creationism" denying "diversity between breeds"
Unless I'm thinking of a different diversity between breeds.
Could you please explain to me what you mean by diversity between breeds? I feel I am missing something.[/QUOTE]
Diversity between breeds would be that they have bred to the point that they would either not be able to reproduce, or their offspring cannot reproduce (speciation)
eg.
Donkey & Horse.
Lion & Tiger.
I don't get it why articles say "he was [I]proven[/I] right"
There's nothing to "prove" that isn't already blatantly obvious and backed up by a century's worth of documents.
Add it to the list
Pigeons are funny birds.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;39437299]Pigeons are funny birds.[/QUOTE]
They're also tasty aswell.
Mmmmm, evolution
if god no real who wos write bible? checkmate atheist scum.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;39435227]I thought it was pretty much guaranteed by just about every scientist ever that Darwin was right.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but 99.999% certainty is still not good enough for [B]some[/B] [del]mainstream[/del] backwater religious institutions (IE: generally the only people that still refute evolution)
Honestly there's probably more proof for evolution now than there is for phenomenons like time or gravity, I don't know how something can possibly be any more glaringly apparent. I guess an utterly overwhelming quantity of fossil records and practical scientific studies just aren't good enough for some people.
[QUOTE=MeMassiveFag;39435228]It doesn't CONFIRM it, but interesting nonetheless[/QUOTE]
He's right. It just wasn't falsified.
Most people who deny evolution can't even explain to you how it works. They should just be ignored.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.