Total posts: 287
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
lolol, as you wish. I'm not personally invested in this like RM is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Let's meet that goal, one post at a time!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What thang means:My ignorance is impenetrable. I refuse to accept any reality that exists outside my brain.
ikr, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
Little girl? You are the one whose panties got twisted because I laugh at you. You are also the one who ran like a little girl from the hangout lol. Make sure that in your attempt to insult me, your insults don't apply to you.
Created:
Posted in:
Calling me every name in the animal kingdom I see ;) As I said, you are a joke lol
Created:
Posted in:
We saw who the little ant was in the hangout ;)
and you still have me blocked on here like a little ant XD
and you still have me blocked on here like a little ant XD
Created:
Posted in:
RM, the second page doesn't reveal much and there isn't an underlying reason as to why I didn't link the second page, it's simply not the first page of the thread lol. All it shows is how you take things too personally on here XD "Liars. All. Virtuoso fucking let me show the PMs you are such a cunning bastard 1000000% he told me explicitly lies." My linking of the first page of the thread does not stop people from scrolling through it and going to the second page. Why would I link the thread if I was anxious about people doing that? Think, RM, think...
Also, I still would be laughing regardless of what the PM between you and Virt contains. The comedic value I see in you is not dependent on what lies in that PM. Since you are all about PM'ing me about wanting my vote, why don't you screenshot your PM with virt and send them my way ;) give me something to read lol
As for your second reply, blah, blah, blah. You tried to insult me and ran off before I could respond to you XD.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
lolol, how can one not laugh at you when all you do is post bullshit in the forums. Here's a recent example of you making a fool out of yourself: www.debateart.com/forum/topics/693?page=1.
What is it you actually do around here other than lurk and laugh?
hm, let's see... I drive quivering cowards out of the hangout ;). Mharman is right, you do have a problem with taking things personally on here. You act like an ass and get mad when you get treated as such.
Created:
Posted in:
@ RM
You are a joke XD. I show up in the hangout, you quickly post the following: "find someone else to laugh at, shithead", and then leave like a quivering coward.
I will laugh at you all day long. From your flat earth posts to your begging of me to vote for you the other day, you are a joke through and through.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
@blamonkey
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@Vader
Although I agree with Swag that this awards stuff has come too early in the site's existence, RM pm'ed me earlier begging me to vote him for MVP
Therefore, I vote RM for 'Funniest Member'... the guy's a joke.
Created:
Can't reply directly since RM blocked me XD
I am not your buddy, I am not your bitch. I am also done here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
@blamonkey
Here's a link for later. Hopefully, we get some activity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I gave a very similar explanation to ethang5 earlier in this thread, but it didn't take. It turns out he has a fundamental misunderstanding of Mendelian inheritance.
lol, I just read the exchange between you and him and I did write up a remarkably similar explanation to yours. Had I actually read this thread in full instead of just skimming through it, not really paying attention to later developments in it, I wouldn't have wasted my time on ethang XD Having said that, upon reading the exchange between you to, it's a lot more easier to figure out why ethang is wrong on this, even a Punnett square gave him difficulties lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This post highlights my claim.Evolutionists soar when they speak only in generalities. Tie them down to specifics and they immediately start to doublespeak.You went to reproductive compatibility. Of course you did. The point was that a single individual with a genetic mutation would not be able to spread that mutation throughout the gene pool if all potential mates did not have that mutation.You dodged that point and filled your post with evo-fluff.
The point wasn't dodged. I explained how your claim, as I understood it based on your first posts in this thread, that the mutation wouldn't be able to spread through the population because it had no one else to mate, with was false. I went into reproductive compatibility because that is how these mutations are spread and that is ultimately what defines a species, more or less, if they are reproductively compatible or not.
You said the following in your second post on this thread: "And what creature did this mutated whatever mate with? D'oh!", as if there is reproductive incompatibility with other individuals in that population... that this bird is a genetic freak wandering aimlessly around unable to produce offspring. Well, you're wrong, and rejecting the idea that reproductive compatibility has everything to do with this or acting like I'm introducing something that is totally irrelevant to how populations begin to change over time as mutations are spread just shows how you don't know what you are talking about.
"Generalities"
There's nothing wrong with speaking in generalities as you claim.
As the video states correctly, we are dealing with stuff that takes thousands of generations to occur and that has happened outside of a controlled, scientific laboratory. No one mutation would suddenly create a new species of chicken; rather, the culmination of these mutations over thousands of years would create a new animal. Because of this, the fact that we don't have a new species of chicken evolving in a laboratory, the fact that this stuff happened thousands of years ago, the fact that the term species is inexact in some instances, I'm of the opinion that it would be almost impossible to pinpoint the very first modern chicken. That's why I went into the generations of chickens, etc. However, the egg came first. The first generation of birds comprised mostly of 'modern' chickens had to come from somewhere... and that somewhere is an egg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Easy, yes, but if you noticed the responses from others who reject common sense, it seems like its almost impossible for them to deal with...
lol, I haven't read the vast majority of the posts in this thread. Other than a lack of common sense, idk why this thread is even 160 posts long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't lol
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Imagine if you will that I have in my possession a box which I have not opened. Now imagine there is a ball in this box. This ball may be any color but I have claimed that the ball is red. Now since I have not seen the ball you may well wonder how I know this and you may well ask me "how do you know the ball is red?"Let us further imagine that rather than opening the box and proving what color it is once and for all I reply "You can't prove that it isn't red".Now you can't actually prove that the ball is not red. Should you simply accept my word?
Assuming you didn't order a red ball online and had it shipped in a box that you have not yet opened, I do not simply accept your word. You have no way of knowing what color it is. As convinced as you may be, it could easily be another color as you have no direct evidence of it being red. Someone else could easily come up to us and say it was blue...
"You can't prove that it isn't red"
That is true, however, I'm not the one claiming knowledge about the ball's color. The default position is to claim no knowledge about the ball's color and to reject the claims of people who say stuff without any evidence.
"You can't prove that it isn't red"
That is true, however, I'm not the one claiming knowledge about the ball's color. The default position is to claim no knowledge about the ball's color and to reject the claims of people who say stuff without any evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"If it's the "first chicken", from where the other chickens? When you say "first", what does that mean?"
The first 'chicken' in this situation would be an animal laid from an egg that is able to successfully reproduce with the average modern chicken. So, if we were to go back to various points in time during the chicken's evolution and test various animals for their reproductive compatibility with your average chicken of today, you would be able to find the generation of chickens that marked the beginning of successful reproductive compatibility with modern chickens from thereon out. With more testing, you may be able to find a specific family of birds/brood that was ever so slightly ahead of the curve in that generation and that would experience a slightly higher rate of reproductive compatibility with a modern chicken and brand them as the first 'chickens'. To throw out a number, you could define successful reproduction as an 80% chance of producing healthy offspring with a modern chicken. Generations before this one may only have a 75% chance of successful reproduction as they are slightly more removed from a modern chicken, thus being just outside what we would consider being the first chicken(s) and we could call them proto-chickens or whatever. Regardless of where you set your benchmark for healthy reproduction rates with modern chickens and how long ago that corresponds to, all of those chickens within that generation or brood came from eggs laid by proto-chickens, their processors would not be considered modern chickens.
As for my mention of Red Jungle Fowls, and the usage of them in my posts, it's merely representative of how we would go about determining when the first chicken(s) arose. It could very well be the case that the majority of Red Jungle Fowl can breed successfully with your average modern chicken; in that case, you'd have to find the animal that came before the Red Jungle Fowl and compare that to modern chickens. I don't know what came before Red Jungle Fowl, but there was a species of bird that was pecking at bugs in Asia 10...15... 20,000 years ago that was the predecessor of the Red Jungle Fowl that you would compare to the modern chicken.
Now, as the OP mentioned, what constitutes a species is inexact. As to where you draw your line or how you define your benchmark for healthy reproduction rates is up you to. However, the problem that you claimed would exist for the first chicken(s), that it would be living without a suitable mate to breed with, is not even an issue if you were to think this out. As I have explained above, you are most likely looking at a generation of animals as the first 'chickens' and there would be no reproductive incompatibility issues with them as they are all more or less on the same genetic page.
Individuals change, and they change through individual genetic mutations, not "collectively".
Sure, and those individuals constitute a population, and through natural selection or a human-imposed filter of domestication, you would see the whole population change through the generations as these genetic mutations experience a higher chance of getting passed down and being expressed.
"Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have no costume lol. My plans are just surfing the web, doing homework, play some War Thunder, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If we went back to that time, we would find there were no chickens at all for that "first" chicken to mate with..........D'oh!!
nope... the first chicken would have been able to mate with just about every other chicken in that population. If we went back to that time, we would see a population of Red Jungle Fowl, through the generations, slowly take on the various traits that cause them collectively to become chickens.
There wasn't a 'first' chicken running around unable to mate with others as you claim. Rather, you'd probably see a bunch of 'first' chickens running around as the population as a whole experiences evolution and a gradual change in their genetics.
There wasn't a 'first' chicken running around unable to mate with others as you claim. Rather, you'd probably see a bunch of 'first' chickens running around as the population as a whole experiences evolution and a gradual change in their genetics.
D'oh!! XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I only chime in when memes are made
Wanna chime in and make some memes about her? jk jk lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Stick to your only skill then, why not get Zeichen to come bully too?
My only skill? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaeZ3RrzpLA
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Was the egg relative to the layer or the " slightly more chicken-y bird"?It was the layer that produced the egg. So perhaps the egg wasn't actually "chicken-y" enough to be regarded as the first chickens egg.Therefore if the egg was non-"chicken-y", then obviously the chicken came first and then started laying true "chicken-y" eggs.
The egg is relative to the slightly more chicken-y bird. The egg came first, the slightly more chicken-y bird that developed inside of that egg came out second and together, they are representative of evolution. With each generation of this, a population of Red Jungle Fowl began to take on the appearance and traits of what we would consider being your average chicken.
Where would the first chicken come from? An egg... laid by a proto-chicken. The proto-chicken is perfectly able to lay an egg that is chicken-y. All that means is that the egg laid would have to contain a bird that would be able to breed successfully with the majority of today's chickens.
Where would the first chicken come from? An egg... laid by a proto-chicken. The proto-chicken is perfectly able to lay an egg that is chicken-y. All that means is that the egg laid would have to contain a bird that would be able to breed successfully with the majority of today's chickens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Those check points lol
Best of luck in getting closer to her. Be advised, if you guys do get together and it goes south for whatever reason, try to end on 'good' terms. You don't want there to be a weird bitter dynamic between you two in the class.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
The egg came first quite simply. The Red Jungle Fowl is the chicken's ancestor... over time, a select population of those fowls laid eggs that hatched an animal that more closely resembled what we consider to be a chicken. Over their generations, this population kept doing that... producing offspring and passing down specific traits until it ended up looking like a chicken/an animal that humans have come to know. So, in this instance, the egg came first... a slightly more 'chicken-y' bird came out second...
It's almost like wolves and dogs... did a dachshund come first or was there a group of wolves out there that, under the guidance and selection of people, produced offspring that gradually took on the appearance of your average dog(that would later be bred into a dachshund)? In this instance, the pregnancy(rough equivalent of the egg in birds) came first, then a slightly friendlier and docile dog came out second...
tbh, idk why this thread is as long as it is.
tbh, idk why this thread is as long as it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Maybe next weekend for a hangout if more people express interest. idk lol, these things are so rare now that DDO is out of the picture.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Should I feel bad that I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.
This entire thing is comical lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The difference between a balloon gong from glasgow to london and a pilot flying to same route is that one ended up there and the other wanted to go there.
Sure, assuming that 'want'/desire is entirely immaterial and not born out of the pilot's psychology. That, of course, is not the case, as the 'want' to go there is born out of the pilot's mental state which is the product of biology, chemistry, etc... The crash course vid I linked earlier lays out how these wants and desires, from wanting to fly to London to choosing a particular brand of car over another is the product of various things coming together... things outside of our control... You didn't pick your brain, your parents, your environment growing up, etc... The numerous variables that went into causing the balloon to drift towards London are analogous to the various factors that had an impact on the pilot's psychology, whether that be his own neurology, hormones, genetics, past experiences... 'whatever' that led him down a path in life that would allow him to go to London...
Ultimately, no one can choose what they are going to think of next. There is no freedom involved. I'd be impressed if anyone woke up with a mental itinerary of what their thoughts would be later on and have the ability to adjust it as they saw fit... Being that you can not predict what you are going to think of next or have any control over what pops into your head, it only makes sense for the actions taken under the various assumptions, beliefs, and thoughts you had during the day to be not of your own choosing as well.
idk if anyone would say bugs have free will. Do mice have free will? Fish? Where do you draw the line? We're all products of biology, idk what would make humans so special to have freedom of will when everything else in the universe is bound by its laws and deterministic nature...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say the 'no free will position' is the result either of over-thinking or under-thinking such differences. Airline pilots are not the same as toy balloons - I can see no reason not to say the difference is that pilots have free will and balloons don't; and that 'free will' is the difference beteen them.
Speaking for myself(idk if this has already been expressed in this thread or not), free will does not exist. The universe, in large part, is deterministic. If we understood the state of every molecule of air, etc, we'd be able to predict the weather with a 100% accuracy. We'd be able to predict wind
As for people, we are nothing special... we are bound by the same laws of the universe as the balloon is, made up of the same stuff as everything else, we live in a largely deterministic universe and there is no space for free will. Someone may say that at the quantum level, it is impossible to determine what is going on there, it's unknown, you can't predict anything... in that case, randomness doesn't give you free will either.
Question) Can you predict your next thought or does it just 'pop' into your head? I'm not aware that people have the ability to author their thoughts... therefore if you can not even have control over what you think, it makes no sense to say that we have control over our actions as they are the live manifestations of what goes on in our heads.
To throw a number out there, 99% of people would say a person who is mentally ill is not responsible for the manifestations of their illness. No one blames a schizophrenic for hearing voices and acting paranoid. They are victims of their neurology and biology going wrong. Charles Whitman had a brain tumour that undoubtedly affected how his brain functioned and the thoughts or impulsivity that arose from it that was later expressed in his actions of shooting up a college campus.
Here's a good example shown at the beginning of this video:
The previous video that clearly lays out a case against free will:
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
A much needed 'bump'.
Hopefully, a hangout gets going this weekend.
Created:
-->
@linate
lol 13 days later, it still looks like a total ghost town, broken reply function, everything is a mess.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
Wow, ingrown nails and fungus? Here's a youtube channel that may be of interest: www.youtube.com/channel/UCpCWvDDoumrtOUsV9p2A0Qg
Rotor cuff issues sound painful
Created: