Is there such a thing as Gender? (1 Viewer)

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Because not only are you ignorant and uneducated, you are unwilling to learn? That is one of the worst kinds of things a person can be.

You're literally a drain on humanity. You truly don't deserve to reap the rewards science has given you if you're going to 'choose' not to believe in it. If you have been taught this from your parents, they're the same. Utterly disgusting.

You are not making ONE bit of sense. Please only open your mouth if you're going to use your brain and logic.

-

Also it is observable, have you ever looked at a fossil? LITERALLY physical, hard, evidence? How stupid can you be?

A fossil is evidence that animal existed, not what it's related to nor where it came from. Instead of insulting, why not explain how I'm wrong? Same with Sien. And in the case you didn't see, right next to what you put in bold, I said I'd be open-minded but the way we were discussing it wasn't working.

It's not that I choose not to believe it, I don't see how it's evidence. It's as if I got a book, read it and then said what I thought the author meant when he wrote it, without knowing what he actually meant. Fossils are there, show that whatever the fossil was, was there, but not what it was related to... Just because things have similar features, doesn't mean they have the same ancestors... it just doesn't make sense how one can jump to the conclusion. I've read all about comparative anatomy, comparative embryology etc. but I don't see how it is anymore than just deductions and opinions on objects/diagrams...

And I'm open to discussion, no need to being my parents into it lol. Utterly disgusting? Right ok. In your next reply, instead of attacking me replace the sentence with substance:

Try this:

Instead of "You are not making ONE bit of sense"

Try figuring how it doesn't make sense, and then continue. If you don't understand at all, you can try, "sorry could you explain this bit for me?"

I'm sure, being the smart person you are, can figure out that insults do not heighten one's stance in a discussion and adds no content

 

[Queenroot]

Borderofstudiesuser1 rewriting the history books

Round of applause pls

Prodigy and legend

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Borderofstudiesuser1 rewriting the history books

Round of applause pls

Prodigy and legend

Erm... huh?

I actually don't understand...

Obviously sarcasm, but I don't get it...

 

[Queenroot]

Pretty legit troll

 

[Sien]

A fossil is evidence that animal existed, not what it's related to nor where it came from. Instead of insulting, why not explain how I'm wrong? Same with Sien. And in the case you didn't see, right next to what you put in bold, I said I'd be open-minded but the way we were discussing it wasn't working.

It's not that I choose not to believe it, I don't see how it's evidence. It's as if I got a book, read it and then said what I thought the author meant when he wrote it, without knowing what he actually meant. Fossils are there, show that whatever the fossil was, was there, but not what it was related to... Just because things have similar features, doesn't mean they have the same ancestors... it just doesn't make sense how one can jump to the conclusion. I've read all about comparative anatomy, comparative embryology etc. but I don't see how it is anymore than just deductions and opinions on objects/diagrams...

And I'm open to discussion, no need to being my parents into it lol. Utterly disgusting? Right ok. In your next reply, instead of attacking me replace the sentence with substance:

Try this:

Instead of "You are not making ONE bit of sense"

Try figuring how it doesn't make sense, and then continue. If you don't understand at all, you can try, "sorry could you explain this bit for me?"

I'm sure, being the smart person you are, can figure out that insults do not heighten one's stance in a discussion and adds no content

You're right comparative anatomy can be a dodge way to see evolution, that led people long ago to think chimps, monkeys and orangutans as one group and humans as separate group. But you cant completely disregard it, how do you explain the common features such as the pentadactyl limb? They don't 'look alike' but the basic structural plan is there. And also we have modern biotechnology to more accurately determine the evolutionary relationships eg DNA hybridization. And yes there is a bias in fossils in that certain organisms with hard bodies preserved better than those with soft bodies (incomplete fossil record I suppose) ,so that may limit the ability to prove evolution, but again we can't completely disregard fossils. How do you explain transitional forms? And what about comparing ancient organisms to today's organisms, the ancient kangaroo was the size of a rat and had no specialized teeth as it lived in lush rain forests with plenty of food to eat. Then as climate changed to be more arid and dry, the kangaroo adapted and led to kangaroo's body size becoming bigger because their digestive system being more complex in that they adaped to the cellulose in plants and they have high crested molars to grind low nutrient grass into digestable paste.

Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it's not there LOL that's like reading a medical book with lots of complex jargons and diagrams you don't understand and be like yea not true cuz I don't understand.
But yes, there is a chance we all got this whole evolution thing wrong, it is a theory afterall, but that can be said to many things ahaha like how do we know if the insides of the earth is three layers of solid and one liquid- molten metal. We have not even dug that far into the earth (OK probably shit example since my geo sucks).

Also seeing your previous posts about evolution, search macro and micro evolution, I think you are misunderstanding what evolution really is.



Disclaimer: there may be inaccurate info in what I wrote


Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[Flop21]

A fossil is evidence that animal existed, not what it's related to nor where it came from. Instead of insulting, why not explain how I'm wrong? Same with Sien. And in the case you didn't see, right next to what you put in bold, I said I'd be open-minded but the way we were discussing it wasn't working.

It's not that I choose not to believe it, I don't see how it's evidence. It's as if I got a book, read it and then said what I thought the author meant when he wrote it, without knowing what he actually meant. Fossils are there, show that whatever the fossil was, was there, but not what it was related to... Just because things have similar features, doesn't mean they have the same ancestors... it just doesn't make sense how one can jump to the conclusion. I've read all about comparative anatomy, comparative embryology etc. but I don't see how it is anymore than just deductions and opinions on objects/diagrams...

And I'm open to discussion, no need to being my parents into it lol. Utterly disgusting? Right ok. In your next reply, instead of attacking me replace the sentence with substance:

Try this:

Instead of "You are not making ONE bit of sense"

Try figuring how it doesn't make sense, and then continue. If you don't understand at all, you can try, "sorry could you explain this bit for me?"

I'm sure, being the smart person you are, can figure out that insults do not heighten one's stance in a discussion and adds no content

I already did explain why you were wrong, but you refuse to think and use your brain. Hence I thought we've hit a brick wall.

What do you expect when you say this, "I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation (you can continue and I will reply and be open-minded but I won't engage that much)".

Why shouldn't I bring your parents into this? You're a kid. Why does a kid think they know so much about science when they haven't even reached past 9th grade science?

-

First off, do you understand evolution? If so, explain it so we know you do.


Your whole argument is based on 'we didn't see it happen so it didn't happen'. That's silly, can't you see? If we're investigating a murder, of course most of the time we don't actually SEE it happening in real time, but if we find enough evidence proving that a certain person murdered another, we charge them with murder (and can safely say they did the murder), because that's the logical conclusion.

EDIT: Okay fair enough discussion completely off topic. Feel free to PM me if you want to know more about what evolution is (you don't know what it is).

 

[Squar3root]

evolution is a lie that scientists want people to believe
We all know that it was the work of God

 

[Queenroot]

big pharma

 

[Queenroot]

vaccines give autism

 

[Queenroot]

big bang is just a theory

 

[Flop21]

A fossil is evidence that animal existed, not what it's related to nor where it came from. Instead of insulting, why not explain how I'm wrong? Same with Sien. And in the case you didn't see, right next to what you put in bold, I said I'd be open-minded but the way we were discussing it wasn't working.

How do you explain animals that seemingly appear out of nowhere down the timeline? You so have a map of all the animals that existed at one point due to fossils, then you go upwards and find newer fossils that have animals that are completely different to those at the bottom. How have those new animals appeared?

(the horse for example)

 

[wannaspoon]

How did a topic regarding gender get to evolution?

Adaptation is actually very different to Evolution...

Adaptation is a circumstance where the creatures genome has altered itself for the purposes of survival... A good example of this is how wolf populations in and around Chernobyl have been able to alter their genomic data to have greater tolerance to the radioactive environment to reduce their risks of genomic mutations (such as cancer)... This has had consequences to the actual wolves themselves causing them to be much larger than a conventional wolf free of excessive exposures to radiation... However, they are still canines and nothing has actually changed for them to be considered a different species...

Adaptation is normally a genomic response to environmental change...

Evolution on the other hand, is a much more radical form of change that sort of builds to the point where that animal can no longer be categorised as *insert name of species* but instead, a different species from their origins... For instances, the human evolution, went from microbes *species A* in the water to where we are today *species Z...*

 

[Queenroot]

In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation.

thx bye

 

[BandSixFix]

There are only 3 genders

 

[Squar3root]

big pharma

They're scamming people of trillions of dollars. They invented cancer, HIV, ebola etc

vaccines give autism

this is also true. There are many scientific papers and research that proves this

big bang is just a theory

obviously that's why they made a tv show about it

How do you explain animals that seemingly appear out of nowhere down the timeline? You so have a map of all the animals that existed at one point due to fossils, then you go upwards and find newer fossils that have animals that are completely different to those at the bottom. How have those new animals appeared?

(the horse for example)

obviously they haven't found the horse fossils yet or they could have been eaten by other creatures

 

[dan964]

How do you explain animals that seemingly appear out of nowhere down the timeline? You so have a map of all the animals that existed at one point due to fossils, then you go upwards and find newer fossils that have animals that are completely different to those at the bottom. How have those new animals appeared?

(the horse for example)

You mean the Cambrian explosion. That is something I don't think evolution itself accounts for in its current form.
I am personally skeptical of evolution, I don't deny or hold to it; I am still trying to get properly informed about it. The problem I find is why it is the most seasoned explanation for particular phenomena, because of it is seemingly disproves certain ideas, the actual explanatory power of evolution is exaggerated.

I would not dispute adaption and natural selection. The part of the theory I am most skeptical of, is links between unrelated species (like I understand one type of finch evolving into another type of finch over a long time period, but not say a fish swam out of the ocean into a mammal (cue the song)).

I wouldn't see much relevance to the argument, unless you are talking about the evolution of the brain.

My best guess at what gender is, starts with when you look a strawberry there is a distinguishable difference between the substance itself and the mental association. Gender is somewhat the mental state associated with a particular biological/genetic sex.

 

[dan964]

They're scamming people of trillions of dollars. They invented cancer, HIV, ebola etc

and AIDS?

this is also true. There are many scientific papers and research that proves this

trying to find this quote !!

obviously that's why they made a tv show about it

haha maybe. Big Bang has credible evidence, but it far from being the final explanation, hence theories of multiverse, oscillating universe circulating amongst some.

obviously they haven't found the horse fossils yet or they could have been eaten by other creatures

or they hadn't evolved yet? lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, especially when there are massive explosions of life.

 

[dan964]

Just another note, resulting to insults is hardly a good way to argue, from either side, even if you think have the truth/correct/morally superior position; especially if they are of a personal nature. Engage with their arguments, in a nicer fashion, if you want to win them over to your position. Calling someone a bigot, delusional or "disgusting" because they don't believe in a particular position, especially as in this case a scientific position, which should be (which in reality it isn't), more easy to verify.

It might be helpful for the sake of the other user, to clarify actually what evolution is; and why is it reasonable, maybe start a thread on it; rather than just say, well he confused adaption with evolution.
(Adaptation is a subset of evolution). Evolution is a broad term covering multiple things.

"the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Side note: I will note for the observer, the version I was taught in school was supposedly Darwinian evolution, made very little reference (in fact none) to macroevolution, and in fact the version of evolution that apparently exists today is not the same (although derived) from what was taught in school; understandably.

 

[durrrrr]

In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation.

thx bye

nerd

 

[dan964]

Male, Female and Other

Pineapples....

Nah, I don't identify anything of the "other" category. Not that it is too much of a big deal for me.