Lumi's Batshit Insane Thread

hodj_sl said:

Its just funny that he is saying there's no evidence they are fishes, or came from fishes, but they are literally classified as fish.

Goby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Goby's are an invasive species in Lake Erie. When I catch them I get to put a knife in their head and throw them back into the water.

Lumie is an angry, gambling addicted Ken Ham.

Denies evolution
Looks like caveman

Can't explain that

Hey Lumie - why didn't the world end in 2012?

Hoss_sl said:

But at some point along the way, it must change from x to y.

Click to expand...

Yes but identifying that exact point is difficult because you would have to have the entire set of remains from every single individual in every single population along the way. If you take 1 step, you have only moved 2-3 feet, or 1 meter. If you take a thousand steps, then you've moved a significantly further distance. We demarcate a transition point from where you'ved moved a few feet to a longer distance, say a mile or kilometer, in a somewhat arbitary manner.

If you're saying there were steps between x and y, you're just trying to obfuscate things.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I'm telling you what the science is. There is no obfuscation here. Trying to play games of "Well if you can't point to the exact point where red transitions to purple, then red and purple don't gradiate into one another" or whatever is the obfuscation. I imagine you have a lot of trouble with ambiguity, which is the real, underlying source of your problem here.

But lets go with that for one sentence to show how dumb that is.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the entire field of evolutionary biologists, including such esteemed Nobel prize winners as my home town beloved Thomas Hunt Morgan, are just so stupid. Please.

Then at some point it changed from x to x1, to x2, to y.

Click to expand...

You realize that all classification of these species is entirely arbitrary in terms of, we make up pretty much all the rules by which we classify them. Nature didn't do that. Nature doesn't see an aquatic fish and a terrestrially adapted fish and say "That's two different species", if their genomes are still closely enough matched, they will very possibly still be able to have sex and produce offspring, even if those offspring are not able to produce further offspring, such as with horses and donkeys leading to mules, or tigers and lions breeding to produce ligers.

I didn't set the rules that said there had to be different classifications, but since those are the rules we all agreed to and play by, then it must have happened at some point in any evolutionary chain that x gave birth to y.

Click to expand...

Sure. But expecting to be able to pull that exact fossil out of the ground in any specific instance is like demanding someone win an astronomically challenging lottery, when we don't need to do that. Genomic evidence alone is enough to confirm common descent, and is actually more accurate than looking for fossil species and trying to morphologically analyze them and say "This is the exact individual specimen that went on to give X species". Plus it really doesn't work that way. For instance, the starter population for modern homo sapiens involved at least 6 different females.

Someone wanna explain to me why some people can't make that simple admission?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The problem that you're having is that you can't comprehend ambiguity. I'm not saying that as like an insult. Its just a reality. If you can't look at, for instance, the video linked by AngryGerbil, and the image of red changing to purple changing to blue, and comprehend that this is DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS to how speciation works, and that this IS the explanation you are seeking, then you clearly have issues with processing ambiguity. Probably because you were raised religiously, which tends to stunt the capacity to discern ambiguity.

People reminded of religion become intolerant of ambiguity

New research from Christina Sagioglou of the University of Innsbruck and Matthias Forstmann of the University of Cologne suggests that this isn't simply a case of guilt by association. In fact, giving people reminders of religion actually seems to decrease their tolerance of ambiguity, and increase their desire for certainty and clarity.

They tested this in four separate studies. These showed that priming with religious words increased polarisation of opinions, the liking for ambiguous images and certainty of judgement. And they also showed that simply being near a church makes people intolerant of ambiguity.

Click to expand...

it's not hard to determine where the change is. It changes to purple at "letter" and to blue at "universe". I can do that with my eyeball.

Click to expand...

The way you perceive these colors isn't the same way others do. If we asked a large sample of other people, what you would find is that they would say it changes to purple and blue at different points. This is a reality. This is also analogous to when you give religious people the chance to judge the transitional fossils leading from great apes to humans, and none of them can agree exactly what cranial features and what morphological features for the skeleton dictates where the apes stop and the humans being.

This is supposed to be science. You should have fairly well defined

Click to expand...

This is just strawman Creationism science based assertion fallacies. It is well defined. Evolution is defined as "The change in allele frequencies in a species population over time" and species is defined broadly as genetically similar individuals of generally similar geographic location which can interbreed successfully and have viable offspring. Speciation is what happens when two populations that could once breed and produce viable offspring can no longer do so, because the changes in allele frequencies over time in those populations have led to a divergence. This is not some line where you cut a string with a pair of scissors and say "Here and no further". Lumping and splitting is a common and fierce debate among all biologists.

Also, hodj, drop the language analogy. It's so fucking stupid. Tarzan isn't real. A man can't just learn to be a chimp.

Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin with this bunch of stupidity. First of all, language is DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO GENETICS. Richard Dawkins even coined the term MEME because it is analogous to a GENE. Languages work on the population level. Each individual speaks the way they speak, which is based in part on how they were raised and culturated, and the whole body of a language is formed by the interactions of the members. As these individual members adopt new ideas, and invent new words to express these concepts, or modify existing words, you get new languages. Like Latin -> Spanish , Spanish + English = Spanglish, etc.

The analogy is nearly flawless and perfect, and wasn't invented by me, and your assessment of it is entirely irrelevant. And men and chimpanzees are 96-98% similar, genetically speaking. And you don't have to look very far into human social and cultural activities to find some very strong similarities between human and chimpanzee behavior. Its sorta why primatologists study them in their natural setting, you know. Because their behavior patterns are so similar to ours, particularly in our earliest stages of social and cultural development. You don't need to learn to act like a chimp. You are one.

Luminati_sl said:

I don't need to have seen God create anyone to know it.

Click to expand...

Wants to see:

Every single instance of speciation ever, personally, first hand to believe in it.

Doesn't need to see:

Magical necessarily existing divine sky minds first hand to believe in them.

Tide goes in
Tide goes out

You can't explain that.

Says evolution isn't observable.

Was just given direct observational evidence demonstrating the evolution of homo sapiens from great apes.

Tide goes in
Tide goes out

You can't explain that.

Hey Lumie, ever heard of the stickleback fish?

Super healthy food doesn't make your body's pH go higher than mid 7s, aka not alkaline (or acidic)

I ask because, you see, Stickleback evolution has been witnessed first hand

Stickleback Evolution

And Lenski's E-Coli long term evolution experiments are also witnessed first hand

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Thomas Hunt Morgans experiments on fruit fly evolution, also witnessed first hand, in fact fruit flies breed so rapidly and the requirements to feed them so low, with a microscope and a pair of tweezers you can conduct that experiment in your kitchen in just a few days

Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Fruit Fly Scientist | Learn Science at Scitable

Thomas Hunt Morgan and His Legacy

Of course, if evolution wasn't real, then the only explanation Lumie has for all this, and so much more, like trisomy events (Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.) is "Derp original sin". In the Creationist world view, all these phenomena have NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION, and NO HOPE FOR A CURE. Unless the magic wizard that supposedly created them takes mercy on us poor savages and blesses us by answering our prayers (lol).

Lumie, what would you advise as a cure for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva?

Its an autosomal dominant mutation that results in soft tissues converting to osseous tissue after being damaged, leading to a horrible, slow, agonizing death for the very tiny sliver of the human population unfortunately afflicted with this malady? How do you even explain it, mechanistically?