“Big Dog” read this post but chose to respond only in the relative haven of his own faeces-covered kennel, and with all the erudition one would expect. I’ll leave him a trackback and see if he bothers replying with anything intelligible.
“Science to support evolution, upon reflection, certainly just like there is science to support man made global warming.”
Translated into a complete sentence, this means that “Big Dog” admits that he was lying before and that he’s aware that there is science to support evolution. He believes, however, that he’s free to discard it because this science is, just like that underlying climate change, unreliable. Notice that he doesn’t mention a single supposedly debunked or questioned point.
“Both are theories so neither has been proved … There is no scientific consensus and obviously it is not settled or it would not be a theory.”
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Where have I…ah, I know! See comment #19:
No Kemibe the idiot… it is a theory. Definition of a theory is an unproven scientific hypothesis. Evolution is far from proven. Q: Where are the missing links you’ve been searching for for decades? Answer: They don’t exist. Ergo theory.
Of course, these guys are completely wrong:
“Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”
As for “Big Dog’s” claim that there is “no consensus,” I wonder what his definition of “consensus” is. Must it be something that even a small scattering of nutjobs–people whose “work” has been demolished by their peers and who in some cases have been exposed in court as liars–do not disagree with?
Actually, I’d like to see “Big Dog” offer a single example of a controversy about the factuality of evolution within the scientific community. Just one will do. No recourse to creationist sites, please; we’re looking for evidence of scientific dissent here, not a “Big Dog”-style “I call bullshit!” I hope he chooses carefully; it is all but assured that his fervent Internet search will only yield a specious example of a counterclaim that everyone here is already familiar with. This is what happens when you stake out an untenable position and tell lies to support it.
“I know the arguments, we share DNA with chimps blah, blah. We also share about 90% with rats and look nothing like them (well meathead looks like one).”
No, “Big Dog” clearly doesn’t “know the arguments,” none of which include the words “blah, blah.” Indeed, he’s unaware that his statement about rats–which is, not surprisingly, incorrect, as rats and humans share “only” about 25% of their genes–only puts him further in a hole.
If affirming the common ancestry of all living things relied solely on phenotype (appearance) it would be easy to dismiss the majority of organisms as being unrelated to humans. However, scientists long ago began making predictions about the relative degree of “relatedness” between humans and different animals and groups of animals–apes, monkeys, other mammals, other vertebrates (including reptiles and birds), invertebrates (such as insects), even bacteria.
These predictions have been borne out by not only by gross examination of anatomical structures but by molecular genetics and other modern techniques. “Big Dog” thinks he can just throw out the fact that humans and rats and chimps share a lot of DNA because rats and humans do not, in his judgment, look anything alike–but he’s yet again wrong.
“We have not seen one animal evolve into another…”
Oh, really? Is that the royal “we” you’re using?
“…and if the fittest will survive then why worry about polar bears or others “victims” of so called global warming … Surely we will adapt to what ever happens or we will perish.”
If the fittest will survive then why insist that they be armed? How is protecting ourselves with weapons (i.e., through a change in the environmnent rather than in the organism) any different than protecting other species through mechanical, biological, or chemical means? Consistency isn’t the moron’s strong point, is it? And how does any of this relate to evolution–the real version, that is, not the wingnut’s “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST=THOSE WHO CAN KILL THE MOST, QED” semi-private and canted definition?
“If evolution is what happens in nature and you guys believe in it then you can’t change what will happen so why worry about the world?”
Yeah, good point. Guns are perfectly natural, but what about other man-made stuff? Why build shelter for ourselves or mass-produce food? Or…hey, am I really arguing with someone who claims that evolution implies that people “can’t change what will happen so why worry”? Must be that kind of Friday.
“Ignorant? Hardly. I just disagree with what you believe which is not the definition of ignorant. Otherwise that would make us both ignorant, would it not.”
Ignorance is believing you can throw out what that element of the world that operates using facts understands because you dislike the implications. Ignorance is pretending that facts and opinions are interchangeable. Expressing violent rhetoric toward those with whom you disagree and especially toward those who actively put you in your place, while not itself ignorance, seems to accompany ignorance with uncanny frequency.
By a similar token, “Big Dog” is not an asshole for disagreeing with me, he is an asshole for a variety of other demonstrable reasons.
“I enjoy when tolerant folks stop by to call me names and be intolerant.”
I, of course, never said I was tolerant of liars and idiots in any meaningful sense, and would hate to be viewed as such.
“I don’t like meathead. If he died tomorrow I would throw a party.”
These are probably by far the truest statements in the entire comment.
The idea here isn’t to convince this guy of anything but to predict how he’ll respond. It’s unlikely that “Big Dog” can be bothered to click on the links I supplied, much less read what’s there; he often doesn’t bother reading much of what he thinks supports his positions, so the idea of him bother with material that exposes his lies and errors is far-fetched. I’m guessing he’ll dismiss the things I posted demolishing his ideas as liberal propaganda (a handy wingnut synonym for “things I can label lies no matter how well established they are) and consciously or unconsciously misconstrue something written here or in one of the linked articles in such a way as to pretend it agrees with things he’s said.
Actually, since he operates this way daily, it takes little prescience to let fly with such a forecast.