Is there such a thing as Gender? (2 Viewers)

[wannaspoon]

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

Love how you automatically shot me down as if I was a creationist... I was not saying that I disagree with evolution theory... I was saying that both adaptation and evolution exist as individually...

What you have written is that adaptation exists by itself and can also exist as an evolutionary process...

 

[dan964]

This isn't something to argue about. Don't act like a know-it-all and imply I'm wrong when I'm not. Then maybe I would have continued to attempt to educate the person (I was happily and showing her the facts in a friendly way).

This was never an argument. The girl is so blinded by her own stupidity and stubbornness (how could she or her parents be wrong!!!? I know it's a tough one), she doesn't WANT to listen to people trying to educate her. Nor does she want to educate herself (it's not hard when you have the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips / internet). She thinks she knows better than the collective whole of scientists around the world.

It's okay to debate things in science, but only if you know your shit. Are you a scientist who is on the cutting edge of research on the topic your talking about? Okay it's okay to start questioning such things. If not, you're just being arrogant and stupid.

So nah. I'm not going to sit back after all that and make sure I don't hurt anyone's feelings. There are very little people in the world that I don't like, and these are the types of people I don't like. So sucked in if you're offended. It was intentional.

Sorry I will call a spade, a spade. You don't demonstrate/educate by saying to people they are stupid and/or their parents are stupid. Even if you are not making an argument (which as you claim). You need a better way that resulting to insulting one's family.
Cyber-bullying is a real thing.

"It's okay to debate things in science, but only if you know your shit." - what so now science can only be debated by scientists?
well if we applied that to other topics, then other debates wouldn't exist. I get your point, you should know what you are talking about, but that hardly means there shouldn't be a discussion on ideas. (I get that people don't apply this consistently to other topics, but meh)

I am hardly offended for the record, it is just not good practice to call people "stupid" even if they are being unreasonable.
To add, it is hardly reasonable to say that non-scientists to question things or discuss scientific ideas are arrogant or stupid.

Just some other notes, tone is not something noted on the internet. I've been called "pretentious", "delusional", "arrogant" before; it is hardly a constructive way to actually address what has been said, even if you do disagree with it. I have seen in it the SSM marriage debate (by both sides, 'bigots', 'homophobes' etc.)

It used to be, the person with the most rational and reasoned evidence was more believable in a clash of different opinions, now it is "if I can label those who oppose me as stupid" then that means my position in right.

Also, a lot of your reply ignores that, I am simply making a separate observation, which I deemed appropriate after your comment to boredofstudiersuser1. It is not "education" if you are saying:

A. Well they are stupid, for disagreeing with what is apparently undisputed.
B. Here are some links.
C. they are stupid for not looking at the links.

edit: Your latest reply (above) seems more reasonable.

 

[dan964]

All scientific theories are based on evidence. If there was evidence that proved it false, then there you go. But that hasn't happened has it? There is evidence proving that evolution exists and has resulted in us and life around us. It's not even close to 'faith' which is something you believe in with NO evidence. Not even a little bit close.

strawman: Faith is not belief with lack of evidence.

I'll see if I can look in also separately into those links, if you want

 

[Queenroot]

Love how you automatically shot me down as if I was a creationist... I was not saying that I disagree with evolution theory... I was saying that both adaptation and evolution exist as individually...

What you have written is that adaptation exists by itself and can also exist as an evolutionary process...

Mate I didn't say anything I just pasted off wiki

 

[wannaspoon]

I'll just leave this cancer here...

 

[Flop21]

Sorry I will call a spade, a spade. You don't demonstrate/educate by saying to people they are stupid and/or their parents are stupid. Even if you are not making an argument (which as you claim). You need a better way that resulting to insulting one's family.
Cyber-bullying is a real thing.

"It's okay to debate things in science, but only if you know your shit." - what so now science can only be debated by scientists?
well if we applied that to other topics, then other debates wouldn't exist. I get your point, you should know what you are talking about, but that hardly means there shouldn't be a discussion on ideas. (I get that people don't apply this consistently to other topics, but meh)

I am hardly offended for the record, it is just not good practice to call people "stupid" even if they are being unreasonable.
To add, it is hardly reasonable to say that non-scientists to question things or discuss scientific ideas are arrogant or stupid.

Just some other notes, tone is not something noted on the internet. I've been called "pretentious", "delusional", "arrogant" before; it is hardly a constructive way to actually address what has been said, even if you do disagree with it. I have seen in it the SSM marriage debate (by both sides, 'bigots', 'homophobes' etc.)

It used to be, the person with the most rational and reasoned evidence was more believable in a clash of different opinions, now it is "if I can label those who oppose me as stupid" then that means my position in right.

Also, a lot of your reply ignores that, I am simply making a separate observation, which I deemed appropriate after your comment to boredofstudiersuser1. It is not "education" if you are saying:

A. Well they are stupid, for disagreeing with what is apparently undisputed.
B. Here are some links.
C. they are stupid for not looking at the links.

edit: Your latest reply (above) seems more reasonable.

Dan buddy, you're going backwards. I feel like I've already addressed this. In fact the post you replied to makes it very clear.

And no I'm not changing what I said. You can't debate a topic you know very little about. Else it breeds people like Pauline Hanson talking about climate change, which she clearly doesn't know a thing about. These people can then spread their dangerous ideas (anti vaxxers are another example), so YES they have to be stopped. And boy do they deserve MORE than just a little insulting.

It's also a big thing to have someone who is not a scientist going AGAINST the beliefs of the collective science world. YES I would call that arrogant and stupid, are you serious right now??

Not everyone in this world is entitled to their own precious opinion. And their opinion doesn't have the right to NOT be criticised.

 

[Sien]

Dan buddy, you're going backwards. I feel like I've already addressed this. In fact the post you replied to makes it very clear.

And no I'm not changing what I said. You can't debate a topic you know very little about. Else it breeds people like Pauline Hanson talking about climate change, which she clearly doesn't know a thing about. These people can then spread their dangerous ideas (anti vaxxers are another example), so YES they have to be stopped. And boy do they deserve MORE than just a little insulting.

It's also a big thing to have someone who is not a scientist going AGAINST the beliefs of the collective science world. YES I would call that arrogant and stupid, are you serious right now??

Not everyone in this world is entitled to their own precious opinion. And their opinion doesn't have the right to NOT be criticised.

I don't want to get killed by you hahah but when you're arguing your point, you should never insult the opposite party esp their family, you don't even know them to talk smack. Although bored may have some misunderstood knowledge about evolution, I'm not claiming to be an expert either, I think you should see it from her perspective too. It's not like bored isn't willing to take in new information and she has reasoned why she doesn't believe evolution, perhaps your explanation wasn't convincing enough for her idk

It seems like in most threads if the person isn't convinced with your point within a few posts you seem to get really emotionally charged, not saying having a strong opinion is wrong but I think it's better to just relax a little bit

Again I'm not telling you what to do, that's up to you

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[si2136]

Definition of Gender: The state of being male or female

Therefore, Gender exists.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

I don't want to get killed by you hahah but when you're arguing your point, you should never insult the opposite party esp their family, you don't even know them to talk smack. Although bored may have some misunderstood knowledge about evolution, I'm not claiming to be an expert either, I think you should see it from her perspective too. It's not like bored isn't willing to take in new information and she has reasoned why she doesn't believe evolution, perhaps your explanation wasn't convincing enough for her idk

It seems like in most threads if the person isn't convinced with your point within a few posts you seem to get really emotionally charged, not saying having a strong opinion is wrong but I think it's better to just relax a little bit

Again I'm not telling you what to do, that's up to you

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

HAHAHAHAHAHA, you made my day

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Dan buddy, you're going backwards. I feel like I've already addressed this. In fact the post you replied to makes it very clear.

And no I'm not changing what I said. You can't debate a topic you know very little about. Else it breeds people like Pauline Hanson talking about climate change, which she clearly doesn't know a thing about. These people can then spread their dangerous ideas (anti vaxxers are another example), so YES they have to be stopped. And boy do they deserve MORE than just a little insulting.

It's also a big thing to have someone who is not a scientist going AGAINST the beliefs of the collective science world. YES I would call that arrogant and stupid, are you serious right now??

Not everyone in this world is entitled to their own precious opinion. And their opinion doesn't have the right to NOT be criticised.

How do you know you're not misinformed about these issues? Just because people don't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean they're wrong... there are studies showing that global warming doesn't exist and vaccines haven't been proven to work... I think your thinking is that your views are right until proven wrong and that other views are wrong until proven right... in order to be able to discuss properly, standards have to be kept the same for all opinions, wrong until proven right. Just a way we can discuss in a more logical environment

EDIT: Also, Pauline Hanson doesn't hammer issues on global warming all the time anyway, and how do you know she's misinformed? Just because she isn't a certified scientist doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about. I'm not agreeing with her, I'm just pointing this out.

 

[Flop21]

How do you know you're not misinformed about these issues? Just because people don't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean they're wrong... there are studies showing that global warming doesn't exist and vaccines haven't been proven to work... I think your thinking is that your views are right until proven wrong and that other views are wrong until proven right... in order to be able to discuss properly, standards have to be kept the same for all opinions, wrong until proven right. Just a way we can discuss in a more logical environment

EDIT: Also, Pauline Hanson doesn't hammer issues on global warming all the time anyway, and how do you know she's misinformed? Just because she isn't a certified scientist doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about. I'm not agreeing with her, I'm just pointing this out.

AND after all that, she doesn't even reply to my post. You complained about me not discussing this with you properly, yet you plain ignore my discussion and go on about some other BS.

Please everyone take a look at this:

there are studies showing that global warming doesn't exist and vaccines haven't been proven to work...

just look at that


-

You seem to have it backwards. These aren't my 'opinions' these are FACTS that the whole science world considers CORRECT. So YES, YOU the one disagreeing with the collective whole have to prove yourself RIGHT and me WRONG. What do you expect me to do? Link you thousands of papers of research on these topics? Is this a joke?

Like I said, you seem to have this skewed view of the world that all opinions are equal. They're not.

I'm going to stop replying to you unless you have something of substance to say in response to my previous post with the questions I had for you. Because I think queenroot was right, you are a troll (at least that's what I'll be telling myself to make it easier than knowing someone like you exists in real life).

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

You're a real piece of work aren't you?

You really want me to do this? Alright let's go. Now YOU need to have the open mind and be willing to learn.

First off, let's stop assuming things about you and ask how do you think life on earth has come to be the way it is today? If not evolution, what?

Secondly, why haven't you answered my question?



Thirdly, did you watch and read the links I gave you? Be honest. If no, I'll be happy to use them and quote them in response to whatever you say to help explain things.



Excuse me? Please give me names of scientists that are like that. And no I don't care about your stupid science teachers who need to go back to school themselves.



All scientific theories are based on evidence. If there was evidence that proved it false, then there you go. But that hasn't happened has it? There is evidence proving that evolution exists and has resulted in us and life around us. It's not even close to 'faith' which is something you believe in with NO evidence. Not even a little bit close.

EDIT: Also I will add, that I'd like you to respond to:

"if an animal micro-evolves 750 times, its going to be close to unrecognisable from its ancestors, which is macro evolution"

do you agree or disagree? Personally I think it's just simple logic to be able to understand if something is making slow minor changes over the years, for 3.6 BILLION years, clearly the end product is going to be a LOT different than what we started with. And if you can't put that 3.6 billion years into perspective, take a look at these graphics that may help: http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

Ok, I now have time to answer this...

Firstly, I don't see how my belief as to how the world came into being is relevant to the discussion of evolution as I haven't brought in external belief factors to my arguments. I don't think there is enough solid evidence for any theory and therefore I am still investigating. Also, if something like evolution is true, and we don't have souls or there is no after-life, I don't see how knowing that we are evolving is important to us, we're going to turn into a pile of dirt anyway.

Secondly, I don't understand what 'animals appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the timeline' even means. How do we know they didn't exist before then and that we just don't have fossils further back than the times we believe they existed? Scientists don't know what they haven't found yet (obviously) and therefore there is no need for further explanation to this question. Feel free to ask more about this if need be.

Thirdly, yes I did read the links but it's about the 'evidence' I've already learnt about. You can still use and quote them in response to what I say if you feel it to be fit to do so.

In order to answer your question on the scientists that don't believe in evolution, we need to define what a scientist is. (Also, does not agreeing with you mean they're stupid? lol) I found this article that I think explains it well (if you scroll down a bit):

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

Feel free to ask more about this.

Ok, your second last question is a bit, to me, dumb and illogical. Just because something hasn't been proven wrong doesn't mean it's not wrong... This is an Argument from Ignorance (logical fallacy) and has no bearing on the argument. It's as if I said that unicorns exist, and you can't tell me otherwise unless you can prove they don't exist. And just because we haven't found one, doesn't mean they don't exist (they could just be really good at hiding). Same with God. What if I said he exists, and he has to exist unless you can prove he doesn't? Also, there are parts of evolution that have been proven to be wrong. If you are interested in seeing a creationist argue evolution (this guy is one of the best I've seen), then please check out:

Kent Hovind - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Please disregard his external life as it is a completely different topic and look at what he says. I completely understand if you don't listen to him, and you ignore it. He is not a creationist who just says 'The bible is true and that's why evolution doesn't exist' and he actually gives evidence as to why it is wrong. He also answers questions on YouTube regarding different aspects of evolution. DISCLAIMER: Just because I endorse what he says in regards to evolution does not mean I believe everything he does/says.

For your EDIT, we have to agree that the world is 3.6 BILLION years old. I don't believe so, as I don't think there's enough evidence to prove this and I don't think carbon dating the way they believe it does. In addition, no I don't think they would change completely, minor adjustments and adaptations only take place when need be, not every day, just when they change environments, habitats et. cetera. As to your most recent post, I didn't respond because I hadn't seen this post + I needed to find a lump of time to be able to answer it all.

Also, "I'll keep telling myself that", how do you know you're not doing that with evolution? Instead of believing it because it's proven, you believe it because it seems like the most comfortable thing to believe?

 

[Flop21]

Ok, I now have time to answer this...

Firstly, I don't see how my belief as to how the world came into being is relevant to the discussion of evolution as I haven't brought in external belief factors to my arguments. I don't think there is enough solid evidence for any theory and therefore I am still investigating. Also, if something like evolution is true, and we don't have souls or there is no after-life, I don't see how knowing that we are evolving is important to us, we're going to turn into a pile of dirt anyway.

Not sure wtf you're talking about. Can you not read? "how do you think life on earth has come to be the way it is today" was the question. Evolution is the current consensus. And you're disagreeing, so what do you think if not evolution?

Secondly, I don't understand what 'animals appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the timeline' even means. How do we know they didn't exist before then and that we just don't have fossils further back than the times we believe they existed? Scientists don't know what they haven't found yet (obviously) and therefore there is no need for further explanation to this question. Feel free to ask more about this if need be.

Do you understand how fossils work? The older fossils are on the bottom, the newer fossils are on the top. Evolution explains what I said to you, the thing has evolved over time to be something very different to what it once was. But to you, it must be like it's appeared out of nowhere. Like I've already said, e.g. the modern horse fossil. You won't find a horse fossil that looks like the horse we know today dated older than ~17 million or so years ago will you? (most people realise that it's because it has evolved to the horse we know today, it wasn't always like that), but how do you explain no horse fossil like the one we know today >17 million years old?

Don't you think it's extremely unlikely out of all the fossils we've found that are older than that, that we just haven't found that modern horse fossil?

In order to answer your question on the scientists that don't believe in evolution, we need to define what a scientist is. (Also, does not agreeing with you mean they're stupid? lol) I found this article that I think explains it well (if you scroll down a bit):

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

Feel free to ask more about this.

Please answer the question directly. Give me a name. Someone who studies some sort of biological science (preferably holds a PhD) and is alive.

I'll give you a hint, I don't think many if any exists. That's a MASSIVELY small percentage of scientists isn't it?

For your EDIT, we have to agree that the world is 3.6 BILLION years old. I don't believe so, as I don't think there's enough evidence to prove this and I don't think carbon dating the way they believe it does.

Can't understand what you said about carbon dating, "I don't think carbon dating the way they believe it does", no idea what this means.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

AND after all that, she doesn't even reply to my post. You complained about me not discussing this with you properly, yet you plain ignore my discussion and go on about some other BS.

Please everyone take a look at this:



just look at that


-

You seem to have it backwards. These aren't my 'opinions' these are FACTS that the whole science world considers CORRECT. So YES, YOU the one disagreeing with the collective whole have to prove yourself RIGHT and me WRONG. What do you expect me to do? Link you thousands of papers of research on these topics? Is this a joke?

Like I said, you seem to have this skewed view of the world that all opinions are equal. They're not.

I'm going to stop replying to you unless you have something of substance to say in response to my previous post with the questions I had for you. Because I think queenroot was right, you are a troll (at least that's what I'll be telling myself to make it easier than knowing someone like you exists in real life).

I think this is the first thing we agree on. I don't think all opinions are equal and I think there are right/wrong answers for everything. I also think you need clear evidence for those answers in order to know whether they're right or wrong. I like the fact that you believe that there are absolutes in regards to opinions I just really hate the way you say things, but I can't change you so why bother.

Appeal to majority, just because heaps of people believe something doesn't make it true. You use this quite a lot for some reason.

A problem in our discussion is that I think you think (lol) that I'm arguing evolution isn't true, whereas what I'm saying is that there is not enough evidence for it to be deemed as science. Therefore, we are discussing 2 different things. Evolution might be true, but currently there is nothing that I believe completely proves it, it seems like a logical theory in regards to what they have discovered, but that's due to the speculations and things that have been put into the links to make it seem complete. I believe it is another set of beliefs.

Just a question regarding the fact you believe that there are right & wrong opinions... if evolution is true, what decides what is right or wrong? Shouldn't there be moral relativism if it is true? You can't have a clear definition of right and wrong with a 'scientific' origin.

 

[Flop21]

I think this is the first thing we agree on. I don't think all opinions are equal and I think there are right/wrong answers for everything. I also think you need clear evidence for those answers in order to know whether they're right or wrong. I like the fact that you believe that there are absolutes in regards to opinions I just really hate the way you say things, but I can't change you so why bother.

Appeal to majority, just because heaps of people believe something doesn't make it true. You use this quite a lot for some reason.

A problem in our discussion is that I think you think (lol) that I'm arguing evolution isn't true, whereas what I'm saying is that there is not enough evidence for it to be deemed as science. Therefore, we are discussing 2 different things. Evolution might be true, but currently there is nothing that I believe completely proves it, it seems like a logical theory in regards to what they have discovered, but that's due to the speculations and things that have been put into the links to make it seem complete. I believe it is another set of beliefs.

Just a question regarding the fact you believe that there are right & wrong opinions... if evolution is true, what decides what is right or wrong? Shouldn't there be moral relativism if it is true? You can't have a clear definition of right and wrong with a 'scientific' origin.

With your logic, nothing is science because nothing can be completely true in your eyes.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

With your logic, nothing is science because nothing can be completely true in your eyes.

What??? This is a complete generalisation. You have not spoken to me enough to know my views on other subjects/topics and therefore can't make that judgment. Before you say that I don't respond to your posts, I'm in the process of writing up for the one above.

 

[Flop21]

What??? This is a complete generalisation. You have not spoken to me enough to know my views on other subjects/topics and therefore can't make that judgment. Before you say that I don't respond to your posts, I'm in the process of writing up for the one above.

No need. I'm done thanks. I can't handle your stupidity any longer.

That's the end of my responses.

 

[Queenroot]

What??? This is a complete generalisation. You have not spoken to me enough to know my views on other subjects/topics and therefore can't make that judgment. Before you say that I don't respond to your posts, I'm in the process of writing up for the one above.

Mate go study or something HSC is in a few weeks

 

[Queenroot]

Wouldn't want to fail bio if I were u

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Wouldn't want to fail bio if I were u

I'm in year 10...