He could've said twat. That would've been worse.Originally Posted by Mr. E
Also, LOL at his nerd rage.
EDIT: just noticed he signs his reps with a squiggly line instead of a dash.
like this:
~ sycld
As opposed to
-name
LOLWUTAFAG
He could've said twat. That would've been worse.
Also, LOL at his nerd rage.
EDIT: just noticed he signs his reps with a squiggly line instead of a dash.
like this:
~ sycld
As opposed to
-name
LOLWUTAFAG
Last edited by bacon ops; 04-06-2009 at 10:20 PM.
I sign my reps with a tilde...
I sign my reps with a mushroom stamp.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I put my name between braces like this {simonj}
Says the undergrad science major. Okay.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank
“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” -Buddha
Identity
Also, bacon ops: I'm getting my PhD in Materials Science, not Civil Engineering.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I guess since sycld called you out on yet another one of the many stupid and incorrect things you've said in this thread, you're trying to divert everyone's attention by LOLing about his sig or whatever.
Sure, I get what you're saying. But I don't think that this actually makes a difference. The first human is still the first human, because they were the first creature to fit the (chosen) definition. For more on why, see my response to Syme's objection below.
No I don't accept this is correct. I understand your point about speciation, but we're not talking about species, we're talking about individuals. Basically, what we're doing is looking at each individual creature in the evolution of the modern chicken and saying "does THIS individual meet the definition of chicken". Then we're finding the first individual that met this definition. Unless we include "is fertile" in that definition (which I don't think we should, given that a modern chicken that is infertile is still a chicken), the fertility of our first chicken candidate, and whether or not it contributed it's own offspring to the general evolution of the species from not-chicken to chicken is actually irrelevant. There is similarly also no requirement that any offspring it did have needed to be chickens either. Taking into account how evolution of a species actually works, it's just as likely that any offspring our first chicken may had have were not-chickens as well.
My explanation WAS talking about individuals; I am saying that if you look at all the individual organisms in the evolutionary history of the modern chicken, you are never going to find a situation where there's a creature that definitively isn't a member of the modern species, laying an egg that hatches into a creature that definitively is a member of the modern species. I had assumed that the definition of "chicken" was "a member of the species G. gallus. If that's not your definition of chicken, then what is?
The problem with your definition is that you're identifying a creature as a chicken, purely based on whether it is a member of a the species G gallus. But if we say that "chicken" is defined as "a member of the species G gallus", what we're really saying is that an animal is a chicken if it is a member of the species chicken (scientific name G gallus). While that's undoubtedly true, it's a circular definition which gives us no useful information and tells us nothing about what a chicken actually is or is not.
The way I'm defining chicken, is according to naturalists method of defining species according to the physiological characteristics which we assign as those possessed by members of a species which we use to identify it and more pertinently, to differentiate it from other, similar species.
As for a given member of a given species (let's call it species X) laying an egg, which grows into a individual of another species, (which we can call species X'), let's examine your contention that such an event would never occur.
Obviously both creatures, X and X' have certain physiological characteristics. So for each creature, we can compare these characteristics against our definition of a chicken and then decide whether each is either a chicken or is it not.
The only possible outcomes of this are: 1) X and X' are NOT chickens, 2) X and X' are BOTH chickens, 3) X is not a chicken but X' is a chicken, 4) X is a chicken and X' is not a chicken.
If it's 2), 3) or 4) and one of these chicken is the first historically existent specimen to exist, then we have found our first chicken. And the egg (laid by our not-chicken) still came first!
Last edited by MrShrike; 04-07-2009 at 10:34 AM.
When organism X lays an egg and organism X' hatches from that egg, X' will be the same species as X. And it will have sufficiently similar physiological characteristics to be identified as the same kind of creature. Period.
Do you really think that an organism that lacking the physiological characteristics to be called a "chicken" could give birth to an organism that does have those characteristics? That's not going to happen. It doesn't matter whether you define "chicken" as a member of the species G. gallus, or whether you define "chicken" as a creature with certain physiological characteristics; a "non-chicken" is not going to give birth to a "chicken". It will not happen. So you will NEVER be able to identify a given individual organism as "the first chicken".
Last edited by Syme; 04-07-2009 at 11:08 AM.
This thread has revealed to me my love of 'a not-chicken'
As a black person I bet you enjoy southern deep-fried 'not-chicken'.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank
“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” -Buddha
Identity
lol, good one
as well as non-chicken-fried steak.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
lol at myself
Also, a bachelors in physics and a PHd in material science and engineer, doth not make.
A liberal arts major it doth not make, either. Which is what you accused him of being.
I called him a fag because he likes to have sex with men, syme.
And he might've well been a liberal arts major for this thread's purposes, genius.
Same for the rest of them until your google-fu defeated me. Then you all joined the ranks of Nobel prize winners and I was relegated to the mass of simpletons outside of the hive mind.
LOL, why all of the rage towards me lately, syme?
Because you won't stop acting like a moron, frankly. You're still doing it in this very post. You're so arrogant that you think you're the only one who could possibly have any knowledge that wasn't gained from a quick Google search, and you're determined to keep harping on about how you were only "defeated" by Google--if Google didn't exist, you would never have been defeated, because no-one could possibly know more than the great bacon ops if not for Google! Other people don't know anything, they just use Google! Bacon ops is the smartest of all, he's the only one who didn't get his knowledge from Google! No-one except bacon ops could ever take a class or read a book, they can only use Google! I might be an idiot who makes up my own retarded theories to explain "problems" with evolutionary theory that don't actually exist, but at least I didn't use Google! You all just used Google! Google Google Google!I called him a fag because he likes to have sex with men, syme.
And he might've well been a liberal arts major for this thread's purposes, genius.
Same for the rest of them until your google-fu defeated me. Then you all joined the ranks of Nobel prize winners and I was relegated to the mass of simpletons outside of the hive mind.
LOL, why all of the rage towards me lately, syme?
Give it a rest.
EDIT: You attitude that you are superior to everyone else even when you're wrong, and your habit of making totally baseless personal suppositions about people who you don't know, and your apparent inability to check the facts before making up your own halfass theories to explain non-existent problems, will make you a real success once you've got your degree and are out in the professional world. Everyone will love you!
Last edited by Syme; 04-08-2009 at 02:29 PM.
i could be doing the same shit in the lab while getting a phd in physics as i am with a phd in materials science. i report research as physics conferences, and my research is being sponsored through a phyiscs nsf grant/ after a certain level things start to blend together.
i don't really care about "defending" myself (oh wow a doctorate in pharmacology... something that has nothing to do with sceince at all), but i just felt like adding that.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
LOL, the last time someone told me off like that, I got slapped and they told me not to call them anymore.
Get it through your head, Syme; I'm better than you. The only reason you're still butt-hurt and chewing my ass is this: you did use google.
(P.S. The italics are to show how gay you are)
Well, like, I don't feel like defending myself, but here's 10 FAH- BYOO LOUS posts in which I defend myself
Last edited by bacon ops; 04-08-2009 at 03:30 PM.
The only reason you're still butt-hurt and harping on about Google in every post you make is this: You can't stand it when other people see how dumb you really are, so you feel the need to say something--anything--that might deflect attention from the fact.
I think this thread needs Bacon-Ops transcript posting. Just to prove what an awesome student he is.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne Frank
“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” -Buddha
Identity
no u
Interesting video, hilarious thread
rated 5
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks