(January 3, 2014 at 5:30 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 5:23 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I have read plenty of Richard Dawkins, used to be a huge fan of his, until I found of the truth about him.

So lets break it down. Lets say a Dog has a mutation that is beneficial, lets say a thumb, so now the creature can grasp thing, now this dog has to mate with many other dogs and hopefully that mutation will pass on all his offspring. Now if that trait has to continue wouldn't there be massive amount of incest as it is only his offspring with that genetic trait? So each new "species" is a product of lots and lots of incest?

What truth about him? He's a big deal evolutionary biologist.

Sorry, I'm not interested in teaching you evolution on a forum. Read other books then. And that's obviously not how inheritance work. You pass on your genes whether or not you marry within your family. Obviously.

I have read the Origin of the Species as well.

I understand that you don't have to marry to pass on genes. What I'm saying is the creature with the genetic mutation would be the biological father/mother of all the offspring who would inherit the trait. So if the trait was to propagate it would have to be through incest, as in half brothers and half sisters.

(January 3, 2014 at 5:47 pm)paintpooper Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 5:30 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: What truth about him? He's a big deal evolutionary biologist.

Sorry, I'm not interested in teaching you evolution on a forum. Read other books then. And that's obviously not how inheritance work. You pass on your genes whether or not you marry within your family. Obviously.

I have read the Origin of the Species as well.

I understand that you don't have to marry to pass on genes. What I'm saying is the creature with the genetic mutation would be the biological father/mother of all the offspring who would inherit the trait. So if the trait was to propagate it would have to be through incest, as in half brothers and half sisters.

No, I've already explained why not.

We have learned a lot more since Darwin, a whole lot more. Origin of Species isn't the bible of evolution, science doesn't work like that.

Bill's gonna kick so much ass they'll have to check to make sure he didn't grow extra legs.

The difference is, Nye, being an actual scientist, is going to be limited to actual truthful statements, while his opponent will be free to bullshit
Nye: "I base my ideas about the universe on the things I actually see in it."
Other: "Do you know exactly what caused everything to exist?"
Nye: "Of course not. This is a very difficult subject, and we need much more information before we will be able to answer this question."
Other: "Oh then you cannot absolutely disprove the Bible's accounts. . ."
Nye: "The Biblical account seems very unlikely for reasons 1, 2 and 3."
Other: "Were you there?"
Nye: "No, of course not. I'm not 14 billion years old."
Other: "Well, then. . . ahrrrmm. . . it sounds like you're just making stuff up."
Nye: *gurgling in rage* "Arrrghh. . . are you freaking kidding me?" *Goes full nerd rage, discrediting himself in the eyes of "rational" Christians *

(January 3, 2014 at 5:23 pm)paintpooper Wrote: I have read plenty of Richard Dawkins, used to be a huge fan of his, until I found of the truth about him.

So lets break it down. Lets say a Dog has a mutation that is beneficial, lets say a thumb, so now the creature can grasp thing, now this dog has to mate with many other dogs and hopefully that mutation will pass on all his offspring. Now if that trait has to continue wouldn't there be massive amount of incest as it is only his offspring with that genetic trait? So each new "species" is a product of lots and lots of incest?

I'm beginning to suspect that you're the product of quite a bit of incest.

(January 3, 2014 at 6:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The difference is, Nye, being an actual scientist, is going to be limited to actual truthful statements, while his opponent will be free to bullshit
Nye: "I base my ideas about the universe on the things I actually see in it."
Other: "Do you know exactly what caused everything to exist?"
Nye: "Of course not. This is a very difficult subject, and we need much more information before we will be able to answer this question."
Other: "Oh then you cannot absolutely disprove the Bible's accounts. . ."
Nye: "The Biblical account seems very unlikely for reasons 1, 2 and 3."
Other: "Were you there?"
Nye: "No, of course not. I'm not 14 billion years old."
Other: "Well, then. . . ahrrrmm. . . it sounds like you're just making stuff up."
Nye: *gurgling in rage* "Arrrghh. . . are you freaking kidding me?" *Goes full nerd rage, discrediting himself in the eyes of "rational" Christians *

Well you almost cannot win with those types of Christians. If something sounds a little counterintuitive then it doesn't make sense, try to go into details and it gets too technical. Get technical and they think you're being snobby.

(January 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 6:31 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The difference is, Nye, being an actual scientist, is going to be limited to actual truthful statements, while his opponent will be free to bullshit
Nye: "I base my ideas about the universe on the things I actually see in it."
Other: "Do you know exactly what caused everything to exist?"
Nye: "Of course not. This is a very difficult subject, and we need much more information before we will be able to answer this question."
Other: "Oh then you cannot absolutely disprove the Bible's accounts. . ."
Nye: "The Biblical account seems very unlikely for reasons 1, 2 and 3."
Other: "Were you there?"
Nye: "No, of course not. I'm not 14 billion years old."
Other: "Well, then. . . ahrrrmm. . . it sounds like you're just making stuff up."
Nye: *gurgling in rage* "Arrrghh. . . are you freaking kidding me?" *Goes full nerd rage, discrediting himself in the eyes of "rational" Christians *

Well you almost cannot win with those types of Christians. If something sounds a little counterintuitive then it doesn't make sense, try to go into details and it gets too technical. Get technical and they think you're being snobby.

It's not just Christians... Muslims seeing to that tune too... And let's not forget all other religions!

I hope Nye is being well paid because otherwise spending a few hours in a room full of ignorant xtian bigots would not be my idea of fun.

(January 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm)paintpooper Wrote: While I think this debate is just for show. Nye can't prove anything and neither can the other guy. We will never know the truth about how humans/life came to be.
What does matter is what is happening now and the reality of the world, where we came from is irrelevant to the problems that face the whole world currently.

Science can "prove" natural selection and small changes within a species but it has not been able to show how a whole species comes to be.
Creationism doesn't prove anything it is a faith based line of thinking, with no science attached to it.

So we have 2 guys debating something that neither have concrete proof for or against.

They should debate monetary policy, immigration, race mixing, and other pertinent issue that effect us today.

Please ban this user, consistent thread detraction should be a sufficient reason for profile banishment.

(January 3, 2014 at 9:18 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm)paintpooper Wrote: While I think this debate is just for show. Nye can't prove anything and neither can the other guy. We will never know the truth about how humans/life came to be.
What does matter is what is happening now and the reality of the world, where we came from is irrelevant to the problems that face the whole world currently.

Science can "prove" natural selection and small changes within a species but it has not been able to show how a whole species comes to be.
Creationism doesn't prove anything it is a faith based line of thinking, with no science attached to it.

So we have 2 guys debating something that neither have concrete proof for or against.

They should debate monetary policy, immigration, race mixing, and other pertinent issue that effect us today.

Please ban this user, consistent thread detraction should be a sufficient reason for profile banishment.

Wow. You managed to make a comment even less relevant than the one you are quoting. Maybe the mods should do the modding, and you should talk about Nye vs. Assorted Morons? As for me, I want to see proper team debates: Nye + Tyson + Dawkins + Dennett vs. WLC and 3 more