- Joined
- Dec 24, 2005
- Messages
- 4,736
- Reaction score
- 824
- Location
- South Dakota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What does that have to do with anything, though?
That assumptions should be kept within the realm of observable stimuli.
What does that have to do with anything, though?
That assumptions should be kept within the realm of observable stimuli.
1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
.
1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
Richard Lenski has made a living watching bacteria grow, and it has now got him into the National Academies of Science. Lenski has turned patience into a virtue by starting an experiment in 1988, and continuing it to this very day: growing E. coli under poor conditions and following how they evolve in response. In that time, 12 individual lines of bacteria have gone through 44,000 generations, with sample populations frozen down every 500 generations. The experiment has not only allowed him to track the evolution of the bacteria, but to reconstruct its history through these frozen samples.
His election to the Academy gives him the right to publish a paper of his choosing, and he chose a good topic. The bacteria are growth-constrained by low levels of glucose, and most lines have evolved so that they burn through the glucose as quickly as possible, then wait for the next daily infusion. About 33,000 generations in, however, one line of bacteria did something else entirely: it began to digest the large amounts of citrate present in the media. This is more startling than it sounds, as E. coli is sometimes defined by its inability to metabolize citrate.
A quick look into the frozen stocks revealed the citrate-eaters first appeared at about 31,000 generations. They began to grow at the expense of their normal cousins, but then dropped again as the sucrose-eaters adapted a bit. By 33,000 generations, however, a further adaptation sent the citrate-eaters on the road to dominance.
I know that you are not anti-evolution, but I would like to point out that evolution has, in fact, been directly observed.
Source [Ars Technica | Tracking adaptation as bacteria evolve]
As a side note, this experiment aroused the ire of the always amusing Conservapedia, which proceeded to become a part of one of the most hilarious examples of actual experts spanking internet "experts" that I've ever seen. I would highly recommend reading Lenski's exchange with the site's founder
And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.
Not to plagarize, but...Great, so facts do change. Thanks.
G-d????I believe in intelligent design, but that doesn't mean it had to be G-d. It could have been alien intelligence.
G-d????
Yeah, that always seemed strange to me. I mean, we all still know exactly who Ron is referring to. But hey, whatever works for you.I'm going to guess that Radical Ron's probably Jewish, and by not putting in the vowel he's not taking the lord's name in vain.
If I guessed wrong, Ron, I apologize.
Yeah, that always seemed strange to me. I mean, we all still know exactly who Ron is referring to. But hey, whatever works for you.
I get the respect thing, I honestly do. My feelings are that God probably does not mind you saying his name if you are mentioning him. Ron wasn't cursing God or saying "God Dammit", he was merely mentioning the Lord. Anyway, I have no issue with it, I simply found it interesting.It's not that strange to me. It's a respect thing. I actually get it.
Please attempt to follow the conversation before you join in, especially if your point is to be condescending.
My conversation with Goobieman showed that Tucker Case's point that facts do not change was semi-inaccurate. Me having a dollar was a fact at the time and now it is not, which is a change of fact.
I say "semi" because from Tucker Case's mentality that fact that "I have a dollar" never actually existed as it was a temporary state of reality and not really a fact. To follow this though we must accept that nothing we say or do is indeed a fact until 100% hindsight is achieved.
I'm going to guess that Radical Ron's probably Jewish, and by not putting in the vowel he's not taking the lord's name in vain.
If I guessed wrong, Ron, I apologize.
Yeah, that always seemed strange to me. I mean, we all still know exactly who Ron is referring to. But hey, whatever works for you.
So you do not believe in evolution? The bible says the Earth is only 9000 years old....so do you think that Dinosaurs are a myth or that they lived with man?
I'm curious as to your beliefs. Thanks!
Einstein was an agnostic. He did allude to a "superior spirit" being manifest in nature but this was not an endorsement of theism.
Einstein was not a man who wished to be boxed in by movements or belief systems. His truest wisdom was in knowing that we know nothing. He was a humble man and I doubt you would find him insulting others on the basis of their religious beliefs, nor would you find him making absolutist claims on anything metaphysical. He appreciated the mystery of creation and our small place in it. He didn't try to confine it or master it, he simply stood in awe of it...
What fact changes? You had a dollar on Feb 15 2009. (Which was today, yesterday)
Giving the dollar away doesn't change that fact. You will ALWAYS have had that dollar on Feb 15, 2009.
Saying today doesn't make it accurate. Today is an amorphous idea representing the current day.
Saying "I have a dollar today" literally means "I have a dollar on Feb 16, 2009". It doesn't imply anything more than that.
Stop playing word games.
Reading back through I think I see what your saying.
We can declare something today as "fact", because as far as we know it is fact, but if we discover something in the future that eliminates that fact and existed, unknowingly, when the initial declaration was made then the "fact" was never a fact.
Example
Fact: The Moon is made of cheese
Change: It is proven at a later date that the moon is and always had been made of rock.
Initial fact was never a fact.
If something is declared as "fact" but later something changes, that didn't exist previously, then the old fact is still a fact at that time but today is not a fact because the environment change.
Example
Fact: I have a $1 bill.
Change: 2 days later I give my $1 bill away
Initial fact is still a fact at that moment but is no longer presently a fact.
Does that sum it up correctly?
Yes. Perfectly summed up. Thank you for that.
Good I can definitely agree with that. This philosophical crap is hard to wrap my head around at times.
Thought I'd get a read on who in this community believes in Creationism which is defined as:
Let us know what you believe.