Real Science Friday: Bergman, Bats and Bellybuttons
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
So he was right, right? That sort of thing can't happen, right?
And not get the $24.99? I don't think so. :chuckle:
Why do you?
You should see her when she's unburdened.
Certainly sounds like something a creation scientist should do some experiments on.
Sorry, creation scientist is an oxymoron and using the term in the same sentence as experiments is clearly bad form.
Whatever you say, Jukia.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Uhh sure it can, but it's like you're celebrating Bob knowing which end of the scissors to hold and which end cut. You want me to cheer for him like he's two years old and just figured it out? :rotfl: Should I give him a nice cherry lollipop as a reward?
The only people that will pay for it are the ones that will believe Bob won no matter what. But to the rest of us it just looks like Bob isn't actually interested in discrediting evolution, just making money off of those that already think it is.
I derive entertainment from it . . .for some strange reason. But I'm well aware he's not going to be convinced by anything anyone says, because that's the nature of fundamentalism: Stick to your dogma no matter what the facts may be.
But hey there are people other than fundamentalists like you and Bob that read these forums. Better to have a voice of sanity in the mix than the relentless dribble of smiley faces and nonsense alone.
But hey there are people other than fundamentalists like you and Bob that read these forums. Better to have a voice of sanity in the mix than the relentless dribble of smiley faces and nonsense alone.
Thanks for that.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Darwin died back in 1882, didn't he?
At what, specifically?
So why would he have balked?
Of course. Then again, I'm not the one who had a problem conceding he was wrong about something.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
So evolutionists don't believe that patterns could form on skin that could be more attractive to the opposite sex of a species? Interesting. Does this only apply to humans though? Wow, I thought I heard somewhere that color patterns on some animals make them more attractive to the opposite sex. Either thats wrong, or God did it, cause I just found out that's a limitation of evolution.
Next time someone talks about a 'kind' not being able to turn into another 'kind' and an evolutionist asks where you think the limitation of evolution is, now we have some common ground. Patterns cannot evolve on skin to attract the opposite sex.
Next time someone talks about a 'kind' not being able to turn into another 'kind' and an evolutionist asks where you think the limitation of evolution is, now we have some common ground. Patterns cannot evolve on skin to attract the opposite sex.
I don't think Alate was suggesting Darwin was not wrong about something, quite the opposite.
Darwin was not perfect. Science is not perfect.
I don't think that is what Pastor Bob was suggesting however.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
All we need is one guy born with a harley logo on his forearm, by accident. Women would love that. Of course its not a literal tattoo, yes.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yeah.
Tattoos being inherited is just plain stupid. Inheriting increased muscle mass or something might almost make sense in the total absence of understanding of genetics, but replicating complex art on someone's skin? Riiight. :dizzy:
As Jukia said, quite the opposite. Darwin has a lot of essentials right but he certainly was not right about everything.
It seems like creationists are the ones that want to insist if Darwin was wrong about something that somehow modern evolutionary theory is somehow compromised . . . . far from it in the perspective of science.
Darwin isn't worshiped by anyone. Really what he came up with was rather obvious. He wasn't that smart, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time and confronted with the right evidence.
I think Pastor Bob was suggesting that tatoos would be inheritable.
Not sure most of the women I know would be too excited about a Harley logo. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Creationists have so much trouble with change
One Eyed Jack
New member
You must have missed her first response towards me. She switched gears to damage control mode when I hit her with something she couldn't refute.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
It would be a new branch of species, homo . . . help me out here :chuckle: Heck, it practically already is.
Homo motorcyclus?
Homo hellsangelus?
Homo vroom-vroom?
Homo igettodrinklotsofbeerandridewithoutahelmet?
Pick one
Alate_One
Well-known member
I think you're a bit confused here. Its not that physical attributes that are attractive to the opposite sex cannot be selected for, they CAN be and very much so. This is the reason for many "elaborations" on males in many species, possibly in humans as well.
The problem is tattoos are non-inheritable and therefore cannot be subject to natural selection.
If you had a pattern that was inheritable and attractive it could become more common in the population. But tattoos are not simply "patterns on the skin" They are complex art figures put there by humans. By definition a tattoo is non-inheritable.
Alate_One
Well-known member
You must be misreading something . . . . there's never EVER been a problem with Darwin being plenty wrong about certain subjects. You're the one that made the assumption that if Darwin thought something it must somehow be right or part of modern evolutionary theory.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Why change when you're right?
- Status