Forums | MacLife

Tetrachloride wrote:

National Geographic says the large predatory animals of  King Kong (2005) could not have evolved on such a small island.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … _kong.html

I'm sure that we're all stunned.

We argue that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides a stupendous opportunity for the Creator of universe our (assuming one exists) to have sent a message to its occupants, using known physics. Our work does not support the Intelligent Design movement in any way whatsoever, but asks, and attempts to answer, the entirely scientific question of what the medium and message might be IF there was actually a message. The medium for the message is unique. We elaborate on this observation, noting that it requires only careful adjustment of the fundamental Lagrangian, but no direct intervention in the subsequent evolution of the universe.

source

oatmeal wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

National Geographic says the large predatory animals of  King Kong (2005) could not have evolved on such a small island.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … _kong.html

I'm sure that we're all stunned.

Aha! So then that's proof that he had to have been created!!!!zomgwtfbbq

Pro_ wrote:

if any idiot can create life, what makes god special?

Well, this is an improvement.

Conservative calls ID "bovine excrement" (actually, he used another term):

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134554710835

From Georgia State University law professor L. Lynn Hogue (Southeastern Legal Foundation,  worked on Clinton's disbarment, in favor of Ten Commandments displays in govt. buildings, etc.):

From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important.  And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics.

Evolution is a theory pieced together over time, not a self-enclosed theory that is its own end, which is what creationism is.

Etc.  More in the article.

Metacell wrote:

If T-Rex can get that big, why can't Kong?

There could be giant apes but their appearance would be drastically changed. Say that Kong is 10 times larger than current gorillas: the tensile strength of his bones is related to their cross-section, so an upscaling of everything by 10 times means that his bones' tensile strength is 100 times greater. However, Kong's mass is now 1000 times greater (this being related to the cube of the expansion factor), so his bones would be supporting 10 times the expected weight. On the other hand, if at least his weight-bearing bones were 32 (~ square root of 1000) times thicker, then Kong's skeleton could support his weight, but I think that he should look much stockier than usually depicted.

There are other problems related to the square/cube difference when scaling up (or down, for that matter): the amount of air he can breathe and the amount of food he can absorb only goes up by 100 times when his required intake would be 1000 times greater (though I suppose these could be gotten around by additionally convoluting the air sacs/intestines so they have 1000 times the surface area). One problem not so easily solved is heat-loss: Kong's heat-generation would be 1000 times greater but his skin's area would only be 100 times greater, so Kong would be sweating buckets just to maintain his body temperature even while resting.

Or were you not expecting a serious answer?

Just a sidenote: I remember reading about this problem first while reading a comic book way back when. I didn't understand the math then, but the concepts so were well-explained that I did get it when latter I was taught the math.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

A short Q&A interview with Richard Dawkins:

Q: What do you wish people knew about evolution?

A: They need to understand what evolution is about. Many of them don’t. I was truly shocked to be told by two separate religious leaders in this country [the U.S.] a few weeks ago--they both said something to the effect that, “I’ll believe in evolution when I see a tailed monkey give birth to a human.”

That is staggering ignorance of what evolutionary science is about; if they think that’s what evolutionists believe, no wonder they’re skeptical of it. How can a civilized country have adult people in positions of leadership who know so stunningly little about the leading biological concept?

This attitude that Dawkins is criticizing remind you of some folks here?

There are also audio clips from a recent speech of Dawkins here. I got this link via the James Randi Educational Foundation (in the commentary for December 16, 2005).

Don't forget the part where a gorilla is a mammal and therefore has a much higher metabolism than a dinosaur.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

[snip of stuff criticizing Dawkins]

I understand your criticism, though part of the reason why I posted the link to the interview is to dispel others from a belief that Dawkins is somehow wavering in his understanding of evolution...

Ah, I see.

I didn't know that that sort of thing was being bandied about again.

It really is just a modern take on the Darwin-death-bed-conversion argument.

The fallacy of the argument is this:  even if it were true that Darwin did say that he could no longer support evolution by natural selection, it would not make natural selection wrong.  A theory rises and falls on its veracity, not on the support (or lack thereof) of any specific individual.  Thus, as unlikely as it would be, even if Dawkins "went soft" on evolutionary theory, it would not make one iota of difference as to whether or not evolutionary theory was true.

For instance, if a very, very famous mathematician came out and said that he no longer felt that 2+2=4, it would not make that summation incorrect.  Rather, it would mean that the mathematician was, at best, delusional.

So, that argument is pure and utter garbage.  It's nuts that it keeps cropping up, however, as it is so dang easy to refute.

This thread's getting a little long in the tooth.  Continued here:
http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/74976