Missing Link Found

[Jsk2003]

Actually no. You cannot disprove something unless you can prove something.

Wrong,
Let's say you have a red cloth.
You can say 'It's NOT BLUE!" (Disproving the assumption one made about it being blue)
 without having to prove that it's red.

"Well we know that it's over 5000 things." is disproving the assumption that it's 5000 or below. Yet you haven't proven the exact number, yet you still disproved the assumption of 5000/below.

[Ad Bot]

[MoogleBoss]

Link went to Gamelon and was found after he went missing.

[Osak]

Wrong,
Let's say you have a red cloth.
You can say 'It's NOT BLUE!" (Disproving the assumption one made about it being blue)
 without having to prove that it's red.

"Well we know that it's over 5000 things." is disproving the assumption that it's 5000 or below. Yet you haven't proven the exact number, yet you still disproved the assumption of 5000/below.

But then you already proved it's red because you saw it with your own eyes. Take witnesses for example.

[Block Builder]

But then you already proved it's red because you saw it with your own eyes.

You never proved it was red, you observed that it is red.

[Osak]

You never proved it was red, you observed that it is red.

Okay, by your logic, then the picture is not proof, you only observed it.

EDIT: Observation shows proof that it's red. It's not likely for a person to see a red cloth, and say that it's blue.

I think Mateo was trying to say, you can't disaprove something unless you could prove it, if you can't, you're displaying false facts most of the time.

[Swholli]

-snip-

The mathematical challenges of this theory almost make it difficult to believe. The average number of mutations in an organism is 1 in 10 billion (107). To get 2 related mutations is 1 in 100 trillion (1014). To get 3 related mutations is 1 in 1 billion-trillion (1021). To get just 4 related mutations is 1 in 1028. And just 4 mutations aren't enough to make any real, progressive structural changes. Not to mention you'd have to multiply the chances by 2 so that there would be 2 organisms with the same mutations. I'm not even going into detail on the chances of survival and the odds of the two mutated organisms meeting and having off-spring that would survive to carry on those traits and mate. Although it is possible, it's not probable.

You do know mutations happen all the time? Right?

How did I miss that.

[WRB852]

The mathematical challenges of this theory almost make it difficult to believe. The average number of mutations in an organism is 1 in 10 billion (10⁷). To get 2 related mutations is 1 in 100 trillion (10¹⁴). To get 3 related mutations is 1 in 1 billion-trillion (10²¹). To get just 4 related mutations is 1 in 10²⁸. And just 4 mutations aren't enough to make any real, progressive structural changes. Not to mention you'd have to multiply the chances by 2 so that there would be 2 organisms with the same mutations. I'm not even going into detail on the chances of survival and the odds of the two mutated organisms meeting and having off-spring that would survive to carry on those traits and mate. Although it is possible, it's not probable.

I fail to see how this is logical at all. Mutations happen a lot, and animals forget a lot. I don't understand the improbableness of Evolution occurring.

[Korabar]

I don't believe in evolution.I'm not trying to start a huge religion fued,but I'm just saying it.

[WRB852]

I don't believe in evolution.I'm not trying to start a huge religion fued,but I'm just saying it.

Thanks for sharing, we don't care.

[Osak]

I fail to see how this is logical at all. Mutations happen a lot, and animals forget a lot. I don't understand the improbableness of Evolution occurring.

But, not to the point when you get a human.

[WRB852]

But, not to the point when you get a human.

I don't see how it can even be slightly improbable. It's loving bound to happen through survival of the fittest with a 100% rate unless an outside acting force imposes like meteors, etc.

[Osak]

I don't see how it can even be slightly improbable. It's loving bound to happen through survival of the fittest with a 100% rate unless an outside acting force imposes like meteors, etc.

I never said it was impossible, just unlikely.

[Swholli]

But, not to the point when you get a human.

So it's probable, all the way up until you get higher intelligence. I see.

So what you're saying is, things can evolve. Meaning things will adapt to their surroundings. But now, when we get to the level of evolution that is the human, it suddenly has to be God's work.

Maybe it was the surroundings that caused the need for intelligence. Maybe we adapted problem solving skills because there were problems to solve? And then with those skills we built tools and learned. So we evolved. Even if it isn't genetic, we still evolved. Evolution is very probable, and has been proven.

I never said it was impossible, just unlikely.

Unlikely, yet the work of Darwin is completely overlooked.

[WRB852]

I never said it was impossible, just unlikely.

Impossible /= Improbable?

[Swholli]

Unlikely, yet the work of Darwin is completely overlooked.

Yeah here it is:



Natural selection at its best.