I remain unconvinced.
Your argument seems to boil down to: "Birds fly at high altitudes, meaning they aren't taking the shortest path, therefore the Earth is flat". You completely discount any other possible reasons for flying high such as oh, I don't know, avoiding obstacles on the ground perhaps? I'm not a biologist specializing in bird migration, so I couldn't give you an exact answer, but I doubt you are either.
Also, this is completely lacking any concrete data or citations to back it up, and as I mentioned above, there are a number of things you neglected to take into account in your analysis. A bit more work and you might have something, keep trying!
Or it could be that different wing types fly most efficiently at differing altitudes/pressures/temperatures/humidity levels.
By your argument's logic, I could just as easily say: "Birds can't exist AT ALL on a round Earth, because taking routes through the air would average to having longer paths than traveling along the ground. The most efficient animals on a round Earth would have to be moles, as they can travel in straight lines through the ground." It's laughable in failing to take the numerous potential variables into account.
I know you're just trolling, but at least be classy about it. Even if we ignore that different birds use different wings to fly in different manners, there's also the fact that it's no major loss of distance either way. Their altitude may be a few thousand feet; considering some migrate many thousands of miles every year, the difference in distances between one path and another isn't a major one by any stretch.
The most efficient animals on a round Earth would have to be moles, as they can travel in straight lines through the ground." It's laughable in failing to take the numerous potential variables into account.
Salmon swim upstream because there is a measurable advantage to laying eggs in a safe environment. Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight. Your analogy is flawed.
Could you please elaborate on the migration patterns of moles.Note the: "laughable and failing to take numerous potential variables into account" part.
Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight. Your analogy is flawed.What advantage do warblers have in collecting obscure objects? What advantage do peacocks have in displaying bright colors? You'll note in my post that I said: "You and Pongo seem to think...that remnants from earlier forms of a species can't be kept even if they're apparently harmful at first glance." Just because you don't immediately recognize an advantage doesn't mean there isn't one--and even if there isn't, it could just be a mostly neutral byproduct from their ancestors. It doesn't come anywhere near living up to the "proof" claim in the thread title.
Even though the low pressure and lack of thermals mean they have to work much harder and there's less oxygen to fuel this...Those exact same problems arise in the FE model. Your whole view on the issue seems to be "Why do birds fly high at all? Herp derp."
Could you please elaborate on the migration patterns of moles.Note the: "laughable and failing to take numerous potential variables into account" part.
Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight. Your analogy is flawed.What advantage do warblers have in collecting obscure objects? What advantage do peacocks have in displaying bright colors? You'll note in my post that I said: "You and Pongo seem to think...that remnants from earlier forms of a species can't be kept even if they're apparently harmful at first glance." Just because you don't immediately recognize an advantage doesn't mean there isn't one--and even if there isn't, it could just be a mostly neutral byproduct from their ancestors. It doesn't come anywhere near living up to the "proof" claim in the thread title.
Salmon swim upstream because there is a measurable advantage to laying eggs in a safe environment. Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight. Your analogy is flawed.
We are talking about migration, citing moles as an example is irrelevant and you should feel bad for having posted it.
Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection. Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction. Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?
There is a marked lack of predators in the sky...
Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection. Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction. Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?
Wow, you apparently don't understand rhetorical questions in the least. I was citing them to prove a point that evidently went over your head; these are things that would at first glance seem to hinder the species as a whole, but are still used and still make sense in evolutionary theory. These are the kinds of things still pointed out to this very day as trying to mock the theory by people who don't understand it, and your argument from ignorance is as valid as theirs. "I can't think of a reason for it to be this way on a round Earth, so the Earth must not be round."
There is a marked lack of predators in the sky...
What about airborne pathogens?
Your ill-worded post confused me.
Quote from: DouchebagEven though the low pressure and lack of thermals mean they have to work much harder and there's less oxygen to fuel this...Those exact same problems arise in the FE model. Your whole view on the issue seems to be "Why do birds fly high at all? Herp derp."
There is a marked lack of predators in the sky...
What about airborne pathogens?
I would expect there to be no more in the sky than there would be at surface level. Relative to surface level, the sky bears very few dangers to living creatures.
As you can see, birds only migrate in a north/south pattern. Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map. This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'.
To the OP, I would like to add that the excellent intuitive navigation displayed in birds hints at a long evolutionary history of long-distance travel, which also provides support for the theory that dinosaurs travelled the Earth in boats.
There is a marked lack of predators in the sky...
What about airborne pathogens?Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection. Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction. Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?
Wow, you apparently don't understand rhetorical questions in the least. I was citing them to prove a point that evidently went over your head; these are things that would at first glance seem to hinder the species as a whole, but are still used and still make sense in evolutionary theory. These are the kinds of things still pointed out to this very day as trying to mock the theory by people who don't understand it, and your argument from ignorance is as valid as theirs. "I can't think of a reason for it to be this way on a round Earth, so the Earth must not be round."
These things you listed may be apparently harmful at first glance to you (as you put it), but to me they are immediately apparent. Your ill-worded post confused me.
There is a marked lack of predators in the sky...
What about airborne pathogens?
I would expect there to be no more in the sky than there would be at surface level. Relative to surface level, the sky bears very few dangers to living creatures.
Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
But it doesn't go hurr lets make this guy here stand on two legs so he has free hands.
That would be a goal.
What happens is
Hurr, this guy is using his hands a lot, after a few thousand generations and mutations, their species leg muscles and bone structure might change so that his hands are completely free.
Not goal orientated.
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
It not being goal orientated mostly has to do with complexity. There is no final "goal" but there is the short-term goal of greater survivability that is true across the board. To be more correct, the goal of having your offspring reproduce successfully and "mate" and theirs do the same. Obviously no one is claiming in the long term all birds should look the same and be ideal creatures or that all creatures will eventually be birds.Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
So Can I quote you that you think evolution is goal oriented?
the College board and the worlds biology majors would like to have a word with you.
look at pg. 16 http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/lolson/AP%20Biology/Powerpoint%20files/22.25Evolution/49Ch24speciation2004b.pdf
plz lrn2highshoolbiology, the concept that evolution is not goal oriented is a key concept. Evolution isn't some predetermined or organized force. It is simply that a) genes allow heritable traits to be passed through generations. b) new genotypes can occur due to mutation. and c) alleles that are linked with increased biological fitness are more likely to become more abundant in a given population. Aka no blueprint saying "birds have to fly in the most efficient way possible". In fact one of the questions on my AP prep exam was something like: why did evolution lead to the avian wing if designs such as airfoils are more efficient at achieving flight?
Why do birds fly high?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/altitude.htm
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/information/migration.htm
Thread? Disproved.
I'd rather go with someone educated on the subject as opposed to someone who isn't.
Doesn't have to.Why do birds fly high?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/altitude.htm
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/information/migration.htm
Thread? Disproved.
So because somebody else has a different idea, Pongo's hypothesis is automatically wrong?
Doesn't have to.
It atleast proves that this isn't proof of a flat earth.
Bar-headed Geese have been observed flying over the highest peaks (29,000+ feet) even though a 10,000-foot pass was nearby.
t has been hypothesized that advantageous tail winds of greater velocity are found higher up and that the cooler air minimizes the demand for evaporative water loss to regulate body temperature under the exertion of flight.
It doesn't?
Look up a vestigal structure.
Also,its probably not wasting it needlessly.
As mentioned afterwards:Quotet has been hypothesized that advantageous tail winds of greater velocity are found higher up and that the cooler air minimizes the demand for evaporative water loss to regulate body temperature under the exertion of flight.
Not really equal credibility. Neither you, nor Pongo, nor any of us seem to be educated on the subject. You see, as contrary to many FE'ers, most RE'er believe things are more complex than just writing a bunch of paragraf and have James claim them as "a panel of experts."
Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.It doesn't?
Look up a vestigal structure.
Apparently there is no such thing as a vestigal structure. However, you may want to look up "spelling".
Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.
Thats incredibly pendantic.Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.
There's no such thing as a vestigal structure. Therefore, you had no argument.
Vestigial structures don't serve much of a purpose.
Thats incredibly pendant.
So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?Vestigial structures don't serve much of a purpose.
They did at one point, which is why they were evolved. The fact that they have now fallen into disuse doesn't mean their evolution was wasted.
So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?
I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?
That's like asking why your car's engine doesn't magically vanish when you switch off the ignition. The portions of the genetic code and/or the embryonic environment which develop these parts of the body don't suddenly disappear just because the organs are no longer used.
I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.
I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.
Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.
Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.
Do you have any data to support this?
Do you ever have any data to support anything?Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.
Do you have any data to support this?
Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.
I will not dignify your lack of will to do your own research with an extensive study on bird migration. Just to wet your appetite, http://whyfiles.org/006migration/ (http://whyfiles.org/006migration/) tells you how Monarch Butterflies manage to do their migration with such a small energy capacity.
But the best thing you can do is go, fly a kite! Learn by yourself a few facts about the world you live in, instead of declaring that somewhere in the books lies the clue to a Flat Earth, and a Flat Earth Conspiracy!
Do you ever have any data to support anything?
Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.
I will not dignify your lack of will to do your own research with an extensive study on bird migration. Just to wet your appetite, http://whyfiles.org/006migration/ (http://whyfiles.org/006migration/) tells you how Monarch Butterflies manage to do their migration with such a small energy capacity.
But the best thing you can do is go, fly a kite! Learn by yourself a few facts about the world you live in, instead of declaring that somewhere in the books lies the clue to a Flat Earth, and a Flat Earth Conspiracy!
I am going to take this as a "no".Do you ever have any data to support anything?
Irrelevant.
You see how they are up in the air, being more stable than the ones closer to ground?
You know, Parsifal, you're probably the worst troll on this forum, in the sense that your ideas are easily disproved and your own lack of providing informations leaves you at a huge disadvantage, when looking at the more prominent trolls(Tom, James, Ichi). Maybe Johannes is worse, but I haven't seen him enough.
You can't disprove an idea someone keeps building more to, when evidence is used to disprove it. You say light bends, people say it doesn't bend there and there, you say of course it doesn't because of "new idea".
You can't disprove an idea someone keeps building more to, when evidence is used to disprove it. You say light bends, people say it doesn't bend there and there, you say of course it doesn't because of "new idea".
Nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid disproof.
And nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid proof.
And nobody who understands bendy light has yet presented a valid proof.
Correct. However, the issue being discussed is whether my ideas are easy to disprove.
Furthermore, Catchpa, if you don't know which ideas are mine, how do you know they are easily disproved?
Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about. The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.
Furthermore, Catchpa, if you don't know which ideas are mine, how do you know they are easily disproved?
Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about). The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.
Because the ideas you have presented have been either disproved immediately, or you haven't provided enough information for anyone to come up with a related disproof(As no one knows what the hell you're talking about). The thing about YOUR ideas, is that you never claim that they are yours. As I said, most notable around the bendy light idea, you claim it's irrelevant whether it's your idea or not.
Which ideas have you had? As I've explained, I don't know which ideas are yours and which you're simply just constantly mentioning for trolling.
It not being goal orientated mostly has to do with complexity. There is no final "goal" but there is the short-term goal of greater survivability that is true across the board. To be more correct, the goal of having your offspring reproduce successfully and "mate" and theirs do the same. Obviously no one is claiming in the long term all birds should look the same and be ideal creatures or that all creatures will eventually be birds.Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread
What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!
So Can I quote you that you think evolution is goal oriented?
the College board and the worlds biology majors would like to have a word with you.
look at pg. 16 http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/lolson/AP%20Biology/Powerpoint%20files/22.25Evolution/49Ch24speciation2004b.pdf
plz lrn2highshoolbiology, the concept that evolution is not goal oriented is a key concept. Evolution isn't some predetermined or organized force. It is simply that a) genes allow heritable traits to be passed through generations. b) new genotypes can occur due to mutation. and c) alleles that are linked with increased biological fitness are more likely to become more abundant in a given population. Aka no blueprint saying "birds have to fly in the most efficient way possible". In fact one of the questions on my AP prep exam was something like: why did evolution lead to the avian wing if designs such as airfoils are more efficient at achieving flight?
I suggest you learn the content instead of memorizing multiple choice questions for your globularist brainwashing courses.
Please, moderators, put some order in this thread!
Parsifal has made this thread about his lack of acknowledgment that his "theories" have been proved, and the birds and their migration have been forgotten.
I have no idea why Parsifal has time to write message after message of "I have my head in the sand, therefore you will never prove anything to me", but has no time to research the many holes in his "theories".
Being in this forum as a round Earther is like being Mexican in Arizona. You have no rights!
BA DING! TOO SOON?
All humor aside, our threads and posts can be moved/deleted because you guys are simply too close minded to accept round Earth. We don't disregard flat Earth because we're close minded, we disregard it because there is no evidence. So when Parisfal goes and acts like an idiot and posts nonsense, it's going to get looked over as opposed to something one of us posts just because it's not your view.
Wow, a picture of Earth isn't proof of a Round Earth? You guys still haven't proven the conspiracy or given valid reasons as to why they would need one, so a picture of Earth from space debunks your entire society. We're the ones waiting for proof, you're the ones not providing them. First person testimonial from Tom Bishop or lazy experiments from Ichi don't count either since both of them should be admitted for even thinking those were legit forms of science.Being in this forum as a round Earther is like being Mexican in Arizona. You have no rights!
BA DING! TOO SOON?
All humor aside, our threads and posts can be moved/deleted because you guys are simply too close minded to accept round Earth. We don't disregard flat Earth because we're close minded, we disregard it because there is no evidence. So when Parisfal goes and acts like an idiot and posts nonsense, it's going to get looked over as opposed to something one of us posts just because it's not your view.
I've never seen a post moved or deleted because it supported a different shape of the earth that was moved to the lounge. We encourage new ideas and evidence and are constantly reexamining our thoughts and methods.
However, I have seen many posts moved and deleted because they are of very low content and consist of nothing more than, "You're stupid, here's a pic of a round earth!"
We're the ones waiting for proof, you're the ones not providing them. First person testimonial from Tom Bishop or lazy experiments from Ichi don't count either since both of them should be admitted for even thinking those were legit forms of science.
We disprove flat Earth on a daily basis. You guys disregard it as part of the conspiracy, or spew out theories against it that haven't been proven to date. If you guys are serious, and want to expand your society, you should want to provide us with information. It should be your goal to provide experiments that are ground breaking and giving modern science the finger. Your first flaw is the Zetetic method. It tells you to ignore any evidence that you were wrong, and only look at anything that proves you right. That isn't science nor acceptable to anyone who knows the Earth is round. Therefore, on this forum, or even mainstream if anyone decides to give you the time of day, the burden of proof is on you. Most of us don't come here to tell you that you're wrong, we are hoping for intelligent debate. Sadly, until you guys decide you're serious scientists that isn't going to happen.We're the ones waiting for proof, you're the ones not providing them. First person testimonial from Tom Bishop or lazy experiments from Ichi don't count either since both of them should be admitted for even thinking those were legit forms of science.
No one is asking you to wait. Nor are we under and obligation to provide you with any information. However, if you would like to try and disprove a flat earth, we would be more than happy to read it. Also, calling people's experiments lazy when, to my knowledge, you have produced none yourself is questionable at best.
I guess everyone missed that I showed it was just as inefficient for birds to fly high on a flat earth as it is on a round one...
Yes, this diagram is all the explanation that will ever be necessary to debunk this very dumb OP. Additionally, it is well known that there are good tailwinds at high altitudes that make migration enormously more efficient, making the higher route better, even if it is a few meters longer.I guess everyone missed that I showed it was just as inefficient for birds to fly high on a flat earth as it is on a round one...
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/646/birdsz.jpg)
Errr, theres some very simple reasons why birds don't fly in a spherical pattern,
Evolutionarily you mentioned that birds came from lizards, lizards that come from the ground, now evolution teaches that lizards did not sprout wings overnight, nor did they learn their migration patterns. So it's entirely plausible that birds keeping to a rough land-path to migratory patterns stems from a long evolutionary chain.
Using a spherical model, most birds would have to pass through the arctic circle/antarctic, meaning it would get considerably colder (I won't even go into the lack of food and unsurvivable temperatures for birds in those places) before it would get any warmer. Now its safe to assume birds aren't that bright, I don't think they understand the concept of the world, hemispheres and seasons, so I don't think they would fly with such foresight, a bird is much more likely to think along the lines of 'if i go north it gets colder, if i fly south it gets warmer'
I could debate the other garbage you mentioned about altitude to birds migrating and how its more efficient on a flat world (its not). but this site is hurting my brain
Over the duration of the next few paragraphs I intent to show you how the indisputable theory of evolution by natural selection is in direct contradiction with the theory of a round earth. These words will be sure to irritate and offend many readers as a flat earth contrasts what they were taught in school, and evolution goes against what they were told in church. However, I am sure that anyone perusing the material with an open mind will see the truth. I can only hope that I can help some of you shed off years of forced indoctrination and see the world in its true form.
As is commonly known, Charles Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution in 1859 to a sea of scientists and thinkers. Some people read his works and accepted the facts with an open mind, some took a great deal longer but eventually saw the truth, but many rejected the theory outright and fought fervently in opposition till their dying day. Why would one fight so strongly against a new idea? Mainly, because it directly opposed their current understanding of the Judeo-Christian god's role in the creation of the universe. At the time, only a fictitious entity could be used to explain the phenomenon of life; much like today's NASA explaining space travel. This is why people have clung so long and hard to their fight against evolution despite the endless libraries of facts supporting the theory.
As finches were an integral part to Darwin creating his world-renowned theory, I shall use birds to explain how life on a round earth is simply not practical.
Birds, in all their forms and facets, constitute half of all the animals on earth. They thrive on every continent and even excel as swimmers and runners in addition to their obvious talent of flight. They are decedent from great lizard kings which departed this flat land some 65 million years ago. Most interesting of all perhaps, is their migratory habits. Below is an image of migration paths of birds that live, at least partly, in the arctic. (I apologize for the inaccuracies of this map)(https://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=Major_Global_Bird_Migration_Routes_to_the_Arctic,_2004.jpg)
As you can see, birds only migrate in a north/south pattern. Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map. This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'. But how does this relate to evolution? I'm glad you asked. Evolution favors the individual that can best adapt to its environment. This superior adaptability translates to more successful genes being passed onto its offspring until such a time that the species' gene pool is saturated with only the best genes. Natural selection favored the birds that used less energy by following migration patters that best suited a flat earth.
Other genes for efficient flying can also be seen in how birds use air currents and updrafts to expend less energy in flight. This graph shows the various altitudes in which birds fly:(http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/Avian-migration-altitudes.jpg)
Note carefully the different heights in which birds migrate. If the earth were round, all birds would fly their great distances as close to the surface as possible as to shorten their journey. If you were flying on a sphere, the shortest line from point A to point B would be as close to the surface as possible. However, as you can see, birds have again proven the shape of the earth to be flat in their evolutionary endeavor to conserve energy. They do not have to worry about altitudes on a flat earth. The trip will be just as short at any altitude (minus the rises and falls to and from their flight height).
In summation, remember that birds are some of the most highly evolved species on the planet. They are descended from the ancient dinosaurs and as such, have come quite adapt to living on this flat earth. Meaning that if any species is equipped to reduce energy output in any way possible, it's the birds. Next time you see a bird, which I suspect will be soon, give a silent thank you to our feathery friends for helping us see the world for truly what it is; a flat disc. I hope this has helped you as a reader understand some of the 'truths' you take for granted. I know many of you won't or can't accept the words I write here, but please keep them in mind over the course of the next few years. Slowly, as the ideas mull around your brain, I'm sure you will come to accept them, just as many scientists slowly came to accept Darwin's groundbreaking theory over a century and a half ago.
The relative energy of migrating on land vs. in the air was never an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage considering the inability of land based animals to migrate long distances easily.
Evolution doesn't PROVE anything.. evolution is an explanation of OBSERVED phenoma. Even if a very plausible theory of evolution could be given for a flat earth, it would be completely irrelevant and relegated to science fiction if a flat earth was not OBSERVED.
You are showing your own ignorance about science in general. Science is not about proof, even though this word is sometimes used. Science is about explanation and prediction of observations and experiments, based on models.Evolution doesn't PROVE anything.. evolution is an explanation of OBSERVED phenoma. Even if a very plausible theory of evolution could be given for a flat earth, it would be completely irrelevant and relegated to science fiction if a flat earth was not OBSERVED.
...Are you admitting that you would deny proof of a flat earth simply if the proof came from biology? Can no other field of science vindicate another?
You are showing your own ignorance about science in general. Science is not about proof, even though this word is sometimes used. Science is about explanation and prediction of observations and experiments, based on models.Evolution doesn't PROVE anything.. evolution is an explanation of OBSERVED phenoma. Even if a very plausible theory of evolution could be given for a flat earth, it would be completely irrelevant and relegated to science fiction if a flat earth was not OBSERVED.
...Are you admitting that you would deny proof of a flat earth simply if the proof came from biology? Can no other field of science vindicate another?
Nobody is saying that scientific disciplines cannot help each other. Interdisciplinary work groups are very common. But evolution is not there to find absolute answers to absolute questions. It will not find the fastest organic organism possible, or the longest possible lifespan. As a process, natural selection will tend to produce organisms that are fast enough to survive, with enough longevity to survive, and that migrate in an efficiently enough fashion to survive.
Subjects that are better at migrating, at the expense of other critical abilities, will tend to not survive until childbearing age. There is no evolutionary benefit to reducing the length of a migration by a couple hundred meters, so the most probable evolutionary path for any given migratory bird species will be towards better immunity to some diseases, or better protection against predators, for example, instead of towards the improvement of an already efficient migratory path.
I don't believe that you can use evolution as a mean to prove that the earth is flat. First of all... you have a huge hole in your reasoning. Assuming that evolution and natural selection are true, leaves this thought with a huge hole. Since science is made up of theories, using a one very debated theory like evolution(although it is accepted) is making your arguement weak. This would be because if the theory of evolution was proved false, your own proof of how the earth is flat will be obselete.
I don't believe that you can use evolution as a mean to prove that the earth is flat. First of all... you have a huge hole in your reasoning. Assuming that evolution and natural selection are true, leaves this thought with a huge hole. Since science is made up of theories, using a one very debated theory like evolution(although it is accepted) is making your arguement weak. This would be because if the theory of evolution was proved false, your own proof of how the earth is flat will be obselete.
I don't believe that you can use evolution as a mean to prove that the earth is flat. First of all... you have a huge hole in your reasoning. Assuming that evolution and natural selection are true, leaves this thought with a huge hole. Since science is made up of theories, using a one very debated theory like evolution(although it is accepted) is making your arguement weak. This would be because if the theory of evolution was proved false, your own proof of how the earth is flat will be obselete.
I don't care if it supports a round earth or a flat earth. The theory of evolution is not being debated within any reasonable group of people. Evolution is as true as a theory can possibly get within the scientific community. The only people who debate evolution are ignorant people with little knowledge of how it works, there is no way it's going to be proven false very soon.
First off, Pongo, did you simply ignore my post? I would like some explanation, with your reasoning, why there are several migratory paths east/west, one of which stretches from South America to Australia. Because, quite frankly, it goes completely against your reasoning.
First off, Pongo, did you simply ignore my post?
Yup.
It seem my comment was not understood. I do not deny that the study of evolution is almost exclusively observational. The first adaptive mutations to different species have been created in a laboratory only recently. But the main point I am trying to make is that evolution is not the method to produce the absolute best beings in any respect. The contention that birds would find the absolute best migration route is flawed from the moment you use the word "best". Through evolution the different species adapt to an environment as much as necessary to survive.
Ok quacks, let me put it more simply...
The study of evolution is an OBSERVATIONAL science... in other words, you first observe a flat earth, then you can go back and reverse engineer how it came to be. In other words, you still first prove flatness.. without that, you may as well come up with theories of the earth being a pyramid or a big boat or even entirely imaginary and we live in the matrix, because its about as valid. Without first proving the earth is flat, there is no evolutionary theory that is valid for that. Darwins first step was finding fossils or observing animals... he had to first have facts before evolutionary theory was possible... he didn't dream of unicorns and dragons and say they begot horses and lizards.
As you can see, birds only migrate in a north/south pattern. Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map. This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'.I stopped reading right here because I remembered how you suggested that birds fly east-west at 30,000 to push the airplanes at the proper speed to give the illusion that the flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires doesn't really cover a much larger distance that we think it does. You really need to keep track of the bull**** you make up.
Because they navigate earth every single day with a Round Earth model, and it works. It's indisputable. We would either hear about the mistakes or you have to at least concede that the Flat Earth model requires that most pilots and air traffic controllers be in on the conspiracy.
Birds like to fly in the wake of fast-moving vessels, often close enough to nudge the vessel itself. The collective force of a lot of birds all nudging the vessel causes it to move faster.
This is one account for why travel times appear distorted. No need to bring pilots and air traffic controllers into the fold.
Complete load of tosh! I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that the Earth is flat but your preposterous views on "natural selection" astound me. The message I read from your babbling is that you are ready to believe that your grandmother was a bloody ape but not that God placed us on his flat Earth!
It really does infuriate me how blithering fools such as yourself can't accept the truth and won't commit to the only logical explanation of the shape of the Earth.
Complete load of tosh! I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that the Earth is flat but your preposterous views on "natural selection" astound me. The message I read from your babbling is that you are ready to believe that your grandmother was a bloody ape but not that God placed us on his flat Earth!
It really does infuriate me how blithering fools such as yourself can't accept the truth and won't commit to the only logical explanation of the shape of the Earth.
Your post shows that you have little or no understanding of the theory of evolution.
Fastest Flying Bird (http://www.victorialodging.com/recreation/birding/small-big-fast-slow)
The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is the fastest living creature, reaching speeds of at least 124 mph and possibly as much as 168 mph when swooping from great heights during territorial displays or while catching pry birds in midair.
Highest-Flying Birds (http://www.victorialodging.com/recreation/birding/small-big-fast-slow)
A Ruppell’s vulture (gyps rueppellii) collided with a commercial aircraft over Abidjan, Ivory Coast, at an altitude of 37,000 feet in November 1973. The impact damaged one of the aircraft’s engines, but the plane landed safely. The species is rarely seen above 20,000 feet.
In 1967, about 30 whooper swans (Cygnus were spotted at an altitude of just over 27,000 feet by an airline pilot over the Western Isles, UK. They were flying from Iceland to Loch Foyle on the Northern Ireland/republic Ireland border. Their altitude was confirmed by air traffic control.[/url]
Notice how they are not the same birds? You'll also notice that the high fliers don't live where your theory about them pushing planes needs them to, which is right beside every airport in the southern hemisphere.
Do all planes takeoff and land at speeds in excess of 550 MPH?No, they don't. are you trying to segue into saying that the birds in your theory only push the planes during take off? Because if you are than you're contradicting to earlier claim that birds, south of the equator only, push planes to make them go fast enough to disguise flight times. Not to mention that there is no documentation of this happening on the level you suggested.
Yea Evolution is not something you use to predict other things ie; that the Earth is flat. It's totally observational.
Yea Evolution is not something you use to predict other things ie; that the Earth is flat. It's totally observational.
These two statements are demonstrably false.
This is really beside the point. You are right in the fact that studies in Evolution may give results that are useful to other disciplines, and there are some experiments that have given direct evidence to the evolution from one species to another in bacteria.Yea Evolution is not something you use to predict other things ie; that the Earth is flat. It's totally observational.
These two statements are demonstrably false.
Yea Evolution is not something you use to predict other things ie; that the Earth is flat. It's totally observational.
These two statements are demonstrably false.
No, we observe life, observe life's characteristics and genes, and using those observations, try to explain them with evolution. But we don't predict future evolution, life is too complicated a system to do that. Which is why your OP is not even evidence that the earth is flat.
tell aircraft companies that flying higher doesnt equal better mileageActually, it does. Less drag due to less dense air means better mileage.
I think that was his point.tell aircraft companies that flying higher doesnt equal better mileageActually, it does. Less drag due to less dense air means better mileage.
With the angry rants some of these noobs go off on, sometimes it's hard to tell what, if any, point they're trying to make.I think that was his point.tell aircraft companies that flying higher doesnt equal better mileageActually, it does. Less drag due to less dense air means better mileage.
My ^argument^ in words if you prefer: Birds fly high in both FE and RE models, which represents a similar deviation from the shortest possible path in either case. Birds do not fly the shortest possible path in either model, therefore your entire argument falls apart.
Can we PLEASE get back to the topic at hand?
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/646/birdsz.jpg)
I am trying to figure out how this would be shorter on a flat earth.
Can we PLEASE get back to the topic at hand?
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/646/birdsz.jpg)
I am trying to figure out how this would be shorter on a flat earth.
I'm trying to figure out why you think this picture is even relevant. It does nothing to prove any argument either way. If anything, it illustrates the concept, "The shortest path from A to B is a straight line." Which is preciously what I'm saying.
Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map. This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'.
Ooh, I see now. It's almost as if you think the Earth adapted to give birds the easiest possible migration path by becoming flat...
Otherwise, birds tend to take the most efficient migratory paths possible, which they do on a round Earth; evolution is relative. The birds take the most efficient migratory paths they can, which, though not as efficient as if they were on a flat Earth, are still as efficient as they can get.Which would look like spokes on a wheel if drawn on a correct flat-earth map. This is because it is inefficient to fly around the outer rim of a wheel when an easier route is up and down a 'spoke'.
Can I please get a diagram of this? Oh wait... no map. ::)
I know I'm getting into this late, but wouldn't you need to show that migrating east/west has the same advantage to fitness as migrating north/south?The idea motivating the OP is that the birds are quite magical in their evolution: (in my discussion, I assume a 5000 km migration at 3 km height)
Unless you can relocate birds in a way that requires no energy to a temporary living ground east/west and compare their fitness to birds you do the same to in their normal north/south migration pattern you can't say that they are simply taking the shortest path.
There are probably factors leading them to traveling south or north (like the change in the climate) whereas changing to a new time zone generally provides little seasonal advantage.
Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
So you are trolling. I am beginning to understand.
Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
So you are trolling. I am beginning to understand.
Am I not allowed to respond to thickly sarcastic remarks in kind without erroneously being labeled a troll?
No, I understood you were a total troll about 6 weeks ago. You never have specified which species of birds are doing all this plane pushing.Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
Me or Pongo?Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
You know you have a problem when...
A) You've been drawing the same sarcastic topic out far too long
B) People mistake your 'sarcasm' for your actual beliefs.
Me or Pongo?Let's not forget that these same birds are due in Sydney right now to push a plane east to South America so it can get there on time. Then they have to push another plane back, then they'll be migrating soon. Damn, these birds are busy, Pongo!
I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand. It's no shame that it takes longer for some than others.
You know you have a problem when...
A) You've been drawing the same sarcastic topic out far too long
B) People mistake your 'sarcasm' for your actual beliefs.
Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
This is typical of "FE theorists". If Pongo ever had tried to put some numbers where his babble is, he would have ran away from this thread in embarrassment long ago.Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
That's the thing, you can't decide what is or what isn't negligible because you don't know what the benefits of high altitude flying are, so how can you say what or wouldn't evolve?
Your wit makes me laughI do my best.
Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?
Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?
Assume a trip all around the world (40000 km) at 3 km of altitude above sea level. The trip at sea level is 40000 km (obviously) and the trip at 3 km above sea level is (2 x pi) x ((40000 / (2 x pi)) + 3) = 40000 + (3 x 2 x pi) = 40000 + 18.8 km. The added distance for a trip all around Earth is 18.8 km.
Now, if we take into account that a real migration would be more like 5000 km ( 1/8 of the full circumference of Earth) the added distance would be 18.8/8 = 2.4 km. Now, 2.4 kilometers of additional trip is about 0.05% of the total trip, which is impossible to sense for a bird, and less than the vertical 3 kilometers the bird would have to climb.
As I already said, Pongo should run away from this thread, totally embarrassed by the time he took from all the other contributors by not doing the arithmetic before blurting out this "hypothesis". He seems to have done so, so maybe there is some hope for him after all.
Pongo still wants to play with unquantified "negligible" quantities, even though the approximate numbers are already in my posts? Maybe it is the effect of the order in which the posts got published...Fact #1: Birds are observed to fly at high altitudes.
Fact #2: High altitude flight is not the shortest possible path, regardless of the model of the shape of the earth you use.
Care to respond to that, Pongo?
The added distance in a flight due to ascending and descending from high altitudes is negligible when compared to the distance added by flying so far at such a high altitudes on a supposed round earth.
How would the flight distance be any different on a flat earth as opposed to a round one?
Assume a trip all around the world (40000 km) at 3 km of altitude above sea level. The trip at sea level is 40000 km (obviously) and the trip at 3 km above sea level is (2 x pi) x ((40000 / (2 x pi)) + 3) = 40000 + (3 x 2 x pi) = 40000 + 18.8 km. The added distance for a trip all around Earth is 18.8 km.
Now, if we take into account that a real migration would be more like 5000 km ( 1/8 of the full circumference of Earth) the added distance would be 18.8/8 = 2.4 km. Now, 2.4 kilometers of additional trip is about 0.05% of the total trip, which is impossible to sense for a bird, and less than the vertical 3 kilometers the bird would have to climb.
As I already said, Pongo should run away from this thread, totally embarrassed by the time he took from all the other contributors by not doing the arithmetic before blurting out this "hypothesis". He seems to have done so, so maybe there is some hope for him after all.
Can you verify the accuracy of these estimations?
Could you please elaborate on the migration patterns of moles.Note the: "laughable and failing to take numerous potential variables into account" part.
We are talking about migration, citing moles as an example is irrelevant and you should feel bad for having posted it.Birds share no advantage in wasting energy during flight. Your analogy is flawed.What advantage do warblers have in collecting obscure objects? What advantage do peacocks have in displaying bright colors? You'll note in my post that I said: "You and Pongo seem to think...that remnants from earlier forms of a species can't be kept even if they're apparently harmful at first glance." Just because you don't immediately recognize an advantage doesn't mean there isn't one--and even if there isn't, it could just be a mostly neutral byproduct from their ancestors. It doesn't come anywhere near living up to the "proof" claim in the thread title.
Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection. Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction. Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.
I ask again for a diagram.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.The diagram is posted a few pages back. The difference is so small that even in the diagram it is very hard to see. With the numbers I have used, it is an additional 0.05% of flight, so you need birds with GPS receivers and a course on Mathematics to find out that difference.
I ask again for a diagram.
Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?
Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?
As has been said by me and others in this thread, there are lots of characteristics in the migratory paths of birds that make a real difference in survival rates. An advantage of 0.05% is what a bird gets when a 50 km/h tail wind lasts 4 minutes more than usual. Are you telling me that the survival of birds is so tenuous that four more or less minutes of tailwind make a substantial change in survival rate?
This is one of the ultimate trolling techniques of the FE'rs: no matter the numbers, argue endlessly about the exact source where a very specific and totally evident detail is proved in the literature. In this case, of course, it is difficult to find a serious researcher that has tried a 0.05% change in the energy used in a migration.
Your numbers were based on assumptions gleaned from maps of a round earth. In particular, the distance variable. Therefore, they are sadly skewed to an erroneous model. I hope you did not spend long retrieving the numbers or on the calculations.And more trolling.
Pongo knows that if the OP refers to two models, the data in discussion has to come from those models. He is playing with the words "sadly skewed to an erroneous model" because he cannot do anything to make the OP make sense. Otherwise, he could come up with his own numbers and formulas.
Now I am almost sure you are trolling. Or, are you really unaware that the whole calculation comes from one of the simplest equations in all of High School maths: radius times 3.1415926 times 2 equals circumference.Pongo knows that if the OP refers to two models, the data in discussion has to come from those models. He is playing with the words "sadly skewed to an erroneous model" because he cannot do anything to make the OP make sense. Otherwise, he could come up with his own numbers and formulas.
I, like you I suspect, are in no place to verify the distances you suggested. If however, I am wrong and you can verify these outlandish claims, I would very much like to read your findings.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
Now you have to show that there is a less than .05% advantage to their survival in migrating to their real location compared to the "closer" location.You cannot stop beating the dead horse, do you?
As has been said by me and others in this thread, there are lots of characteristics in the migratory paths of birds that make a real difference in survival rates. An advantage of 0.05% is what a bird gets when a 50 km/h tail wind lasts 4 minutes more than usual. Are you telling me that the survival of birds is so tenuous that four more or less minutes of tailwind make a substantial change in survival rate?
This is one of the ultimate trolling techniques of the FE'rs: no matter the numbers, argue endlessly about the exact source where a very specific and totally evident detail is proved in the literature. In this case, of course, it is difficult to find a serious researcher that has tried a 0.05% change in the energy used in a migration.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.
Which they would still have to do on a flat earth.
Too bad I can't get any FE'ers on my thread, yet they flock to this thread like there's a prize to win. Quick question, though, any idea how to do a link? (as in, clicking a word, which sends you to the desired link).
Not trying to derail the thread... just a quick question that's not worth making a new thread about.
Ok,how is that different in the two models?I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.
Too bad I can't get any FE'ers on my thread, yet they flock to this thread like there's a prize to win. Quick question, though, any idea how to do a link? (as in, clicking a word, which sends you to the desired link).I share your disappointment. This thread could be about showing people some erroneous notions about evolution, like the idea that it creates the best possible organisms for a given task, or the idea that evolution improves species. And yet, we are discussing the effect of a kilometer or two in a 5000 kilometer migration.
Google (http://www.google.com)
Yeehaw. Thanks, Raist.
And what do you mean by "more interesting"?
...It's pretty sad that I have to use flashy colors, etc, to catch the attention of FE'ers. I was hoping the promise of a satisfying debate/discussion would be enough, but I forgot where I was.
Google (http://www.google.com)
Yeehaw. Thanks, Raist.
And what do you mean by "more interesting"?
...It's pretty sad that I have to use flashy colors, etc, to catch the attention of FE'ers. I was hoping the promise of a satisfying debate/discussion would be enough, but I forgot where I was.
Sigh. It's not that you have to use bright colors, you have to come up with an idea that is thought provoking or intellectually stimulating. It also helps to make topics that haven't been discussed before. People generally don't like having the same discussion repeatedly. It would also help your chances if you would stop going with the condescending angle. Look at the other RE'ers that come to this site and realize that RE'ers are in general retarded.
I still don't get it.Why is more energy wasted flying high in a ROUND earth as opposed to a FLAT earth.*cough*
I ask again for a diagram.
The birds still have to fly up and then down in each model.What is the difference.
It's not about the ascending and descending, it's about maintaining a high altitude for a long period of time.
Which they would still have to do on a flat earth.
In response to the first post you say that birds would fly lower to the ground because this would mean a faster way to get around a round Earth. You also use evolution.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs. If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible.
Note carefully the different heights in which birds migrate. If the earth were round, all birds would fly their great distances as close to the surface as possible as to shorten their journey. If you were flying on a sphere, the shortest line from point A to point B would be as close to the surface as possible. However, as you can see, birds have again proven the shape of the earth to be flat in their evolutionary endeavor to conserve energy. They do not have to worry about altitudes on a flat earth. The trip will be just as short at any altitude (minus the rises and falls to and from their flight height).
Your numbers were based on assumptions gleaned from maps of a round earth. In particular, the distance variable. Therefore, they are sadly skewed to an erroneous model. I hope you did not spend long retrieving the numbers or on the calculations.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs. If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible.
The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
Right now, it seems like you're saying the birds changed the shape of the Earth to suit their needs. If the Earth is a sphere, the birds are already taking the fastest/shortest path possible.
The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
Pongo is trolling us all. Never mind he does not even deny that his whole argument has been totally debunked, he just pretends nothing has happened and continues like nothing had happened.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.
Pongo is trolling us all. Never mind he does not even deny that his whole argument has been totally debunked, he just pretends nothing has happened and continues like nothing had happened.
Yes, but as we all know, the quickest path between point A and point B is a straight line, not a long round-about high-altitude flight path.
I don't use evolution, evolution uses me.
For the last time, birds cannot detect a 2 km difference in a 5000 km long migration any more than you can, and winds, temperatures, barometric pressure and predators all make a much bigger difference in the migration path and the migration probabilities of success than an additional 0.05% in distance.
Pongo knows his idea is worthless but likes the attention he is getting. Please do not feed the troll.
Actually, I don't mind that the newer trolls get that attention. Their ideas are worthless and because it's so easy to debunk flat earth ideas, their posts get ripped apart.
The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.
The fastest/shortest path possible would be one close to the surface on a round earth.Not necessarily. If they flew close to the surface, they would be almost constantly dodging things like trees and buildings. They would also have to exert more energy because they would be too close to the ground to take advantage of updrafts and wind currents.
No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy
Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy
Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy
sorry, I was calling you out for being absurd, not for siding with anyone. traveling through time and birds that can pull airplanes are equally absurd. no need to get all sore and call me an ignorant jackass, as clearly I am not ignorant and am no more of a jackass than you. Your argument was an existential fallacy and you know it
What about the minor detail of finding a species of bird that can fly faster than a jet airliner? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one.
Traveling through time at speeds different from other objects on earth is not equivalent to flying beside a jet. Please be at least plausible you ignorant jackass. I was not siding with flat earth theory, but just giving a reasonable critique. Please be a jackass somewhere else on the internet.No, I'd say fish nudging boats and birds pulling planes fail much more.
maybe evolution proves those theories, because it would better for the birds to pull the planes, cause we'd give them free foodz if they did
So we can add "bird food for every commercial airline flight" to the list of expenses for the conspiracy.
You would have to factor in the number of birds that are chopped up in plane engines.
The negative effects of being chopped up in planes are x, the advantage of the free food is y.
if |y| is greater than or equal to |x| then the fe theory is plausible.
that would be assuming that this theory's only hurdle is free food vs planes being chopped up.
even if it was greater for birds to become helpers, you still have the problem that birds cannot get in the position to be able to test that niche. thats like saying that it is plausible for people to travel through time to get free and all powerful healthcare, if x (dying from time travel) is less than y (uber healthcare). congratulations, Aristotle, you just created an Existential fallacy, the kind that would fool idiots for centuries before real science was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy
sorry, I was calling you out for being absurd, not for siding with anyone. traveling through time and birds that can pull airplanes are equally absurd. no need to get all sore and call me an ignorant jackass, as clearly I am not ignorant and am no more of a jackass than you. Your argument was an existential fallacy and you know it
I made a statement of fact. You on the other hand made some offhand comment about time travel.
My statement literally had no flaws. All you did was say "y is 0" and then claim I was wrong.
Sigh.
I didn't say it was right.
I gave a very testable way to prove it wrong.
This is how science works. You make an experiment that fails if the hypothesis is incorrect. I was attempting to prove them wrong logically. You just yelled like an idiot "birds don't push planes. that don't make no sense" contributing nothing to the argument.
Sigh.
I didn't say it was right.
I gave a very testable way to prove it wrong.
This is how science works. You make an experiment that fails if the hypothesis is incorrect. I was attempting to prove them wrong logically. You just yelled like an idiot "birds don't push planes. that don't make no sense" contributing nothing to the argument.
ok I didn't realize you were being a DA. Also, the FE'ers were thinking along those lines, so the argument wasn't just towards you.
I didn't yell anything, I gave a logical argument against an illogical argument. I'm sorry if I offended you
Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
[img]http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/bird-plane.jpg[/img
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are not used for the main system of flight.
Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
[img]http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/bird-plane.jpg[/img
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are not used for the main system of flight.
It would seem simple to settle this matter, provide an unaltered image of a bird pulling a plane in flight.
No bird would do this for airline food. Airline food is awful.
Seems like it would be easier to simply engineer better planes than coke up the birds.
You would just have to lie about your initial specs for speed regarding aircraft and create a reasonable lie.Seems like it would be easier to simply engineer better planes than coke up the birds.
At first it might be, but over the long run coking up the birds works. Lets look at the costs vs benefits of both.
Plane
Costs: Having to re engineer planes and thus spending millions of dollars in production and research in new materials and systems.
Benefits: Over the short term it won't cost as much and you would not have to build storage space for their homes and upkeep. You also would not have to pay to find a substance for them.
Plane+Birds
Costs: Upfront it would cost a great deal to find a adequate substance to give the birds the drive to help pull your plane. Also upkeep of the birds and such.
Benefits: Over the long run you would save money as the birds would evolve to fly faster and faster to they can recieve what they crave at their destination quicker. There would be no need to re engineer planes as evolution would make your planes move faster. In fact, they birds would most likely grow stronger as well meaning you could make the planes light saving more money.
I also wonder, since planes are just over a century old, how birds could've so quickly adapted to the perverse commensalism being described here.
In addition, since this symbiosis is commensalism (unless you can provide me with an example of how the birds somehow benefit from this relationship with...planes), why on Earth would any bird want to go near a big, noisy aircraft to push it for no benefit in return? Clearly, natural selection/evolution would kill them off if they really were that stupid.
Okay, that's as serious as I will go on this stupid bird topic. I can't believe it was even brought up.
Sigh.
I didn't say it was right.
I gave a very testable way to prove it wrong.
This is how science works. You make an experiment that fails if the hypothesis is incorrect. I was attempting to prove them wrong logically. You just yelled like an idiot "birds don't push planes. that don't make no sense" contributing nothing to the argument.
ok I didn't realize you were being a DA. Also, the FE'ers were thinking along those lines, so the argument wasn't just towards you.
I didn't yell anything, I gave a logical argument against an illogical argument. I'm sorry if I offended you
I WASN'T BEING A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. I WAS SIMPLY PRESENTING A LOGICAL WAY OF TESTING IT. TREATING SOMEONE AS SERIOUS IS NOT THE SAME AS AGREEING WITH THEM.
I have said no less than 3 times that I was attempting to prove them wrong, since you obviously can't read I have used caps. I swear, I have posted the same exact thing 4 times and you are just now catching on.
No bird would do this for airline food. Airline food is awful.
I also wonder, since planes are just over a century old, how birds could've so quickly adapted to the perverse commensalism being described here.
In addition, since this symbiosis is commensalism (unless you can provide me with an example of how the birds somehow benefit from this relationship with...planes), why on Earth would any bird want to go near a big, noisy aircraft to push it for no benefit in return? Clearly, natural selection/evolution would kill them off if they really were that stupid.
Okay, that's as serious as I will go on this stupid bird topic. I can't believe it was even brought up.
Just drop the subject now. I'm not sure if you're trolling just to drag it out or actually believe it, but just stop either way. I have the high hopes that everyone here truly believes that it's a stupid theory, for reasons above and many others.
No bird would do this for airline food. Airline food is awful.
first lol of the day man.
@englishgent.
don't you think we would see a massive flock of bird around the aircraft, and where did these birds come from? the ground crew would see them being tethered
I also wonder, since planes are just over a century old, how birds could've so quickly adapted to the perverse commensalism being described here.
In addition, since this symbiosis is commensalism (unless you can provide me with an example of how the birds somehow benefit from this relationship with...planes), why on Earth would any bird want to go near a big, noisy aircraft to push it for no benefit in return? Clearly, natural selection/evolution would kill them off if they really were that stupid.
Okay, that's as serious as I will go on this stupid bird topic. I can't believe it was even brought up.
There is no bird on earth that can travel faster than 200mph... doesn't matter how badly it wants its fix.
Nothing, not even a coke addiction, would prompt a bird to push a plane.
I also wonder, since planes are just over a century old, how birds could've so quickly adapted to the perverse commensalism being described here.
In addition, since this symbiosis is commensalism (unless you can provide me with an example of how the birds somehow benefit from this relationship with...planes), why on Earth would any bird want to go near a big, noisy aircraft to push it for no benefit in return? Clearly, natural selection/evolution would kill them off if they really were that stupid.
Okay, that's as serious as I will go on this stupid bird topic. I can't believe it was even brought up.
I also wonder, since planes are just over a century old, how birds could've so quickly adapted to the perverse commensalism being described here.
In addition, since this symbiosis is commensalism (unless you can provide me with an example of how the birds somehow benefit from this relationship with...planes), why on Earth would any bird want to go near a big, noisy aircraft to push it for no benefit in return? Clearly, natural selection/evolution would kill them off if they really were that stupid.
Okay, that's as serious as I will go on this stupid bird topic. I can't believe it was even brought up.
Selective breeding.
Darwin devoted an entire chapter in On The Origin of Species, his first chapter at that, to selective breeding of animals. In particular, pigeons. He showed that by selecting favorable characteristics, one could change a species as they see fit. For example wolves, having been only semi-selectively breed, have become all the races of dogs we see today in a very short amount of time. Also, in just a few generations, foxes have been breed to be docile and loving. It's easy to see how quickly characteristics can be breed into an animal in just a few generations.
So now you understand how birds could have evolved the characteristics to tolerate proximity to planes in such a short amount of time; selective breeding. As far as your symbiosis query, I don't see it as being symbiotic at all. It's much more parasitic.
Selective breeding.
Darwin devoted an entire chapter in On The Origin of Species, his first chapter at that, to selective breeding of animals. In particular, pigeons. He showed that by selecting favorable characteristics, one could change a species as they see fit. For example wolves, having been only semi-selectively breed, have become all the races of dogs we see today in a very short amount of time. Also, in just a few generations, foxes have been breed to be docile and loving. It's easy to see how quickly characteristics can be breed into an animal in just a few generations.
So now you understand how birds could have evolved the characteristics to tolerate proximity to planes in such a short amount of time; selective breeding. As far as your symbiosis query, I don't see it as being symbiotic at all. It's much more parasitic.
First of all, parasitism is a form of symbiosis. Secondly, why parasitic? It's more commensalistic (word?); we benefit, while the birds clearly do not. If anyone was harmed in this process, clearly neither party would want to be involved in it. It's like we're forcing birds to do our will.
And no, birds could not have evolved the characterstics to tolerate proximity to planes; not in 100 years, anyway.
That would be overriding their instinct to stay away from extremely loud, gigantic metal things in the sky that could likely kill them.(http://www.media.desicolours.com/2009/june/birdswarm.jpg)
This is all just conjecture until someone provides real evidence that birds pull planes.
You're talking as if we all studied Genetic Engineering and Selective Breeding.
It is a mutual relationship. The birds get their fix, and we get their strength. It works both ways. Do you have any evidence they would not be able to tolerate it? With modern day genetic engineering and selective breeding, it is very plausible. As forQuoteThat would be overriding their instinct to stay away from extremely loud, gigantic metal things in the sky that could likely kill them.(http://www.media.desicolours.com/2009/june/birdswarm.jpg)
Selective breeding.
Darwin devoted an entire chapter in On The Origin of Species, his first chapter at that, to selective breeding of animals. In particular, pigeons. He showed that by selecting favorable characteristics, one could change a species as they see fit. For example wolves, having been only semi-selectively breed, have become all the races of dogs we see today in a very short amount of time. Also, in just a few generations, foxes have been breed to be docile and loving. It's easy to see how quickly characteristics can be breed into an animal in just a few generations.
So now you understand how birds could have evolved the characteristics to tolerate proximity to planes in such a short amount of time; selective breeding. As far as your symbiosis query, I don't see it as being symbiotic at all. It's much more parasitic.
First of all, parasitism is a form of symbiosis. Secondly, why parasitic? It's more commensalistic (word?); we benefit, while the birds clearly do not. If anyone was harmed in this process, clearly neither party would want to be involved in it. It's like we're forcing birds to do our will.
And no, birds could not have evolved the characterstics to tolerate proximity to planes; not in 100 years, anyway.
It is a mutual relationship. The birds get their fix, and we get their strength. It works both ways. Do you have any evidence they would not be able to tolerate it? With modern day genetic engineering and selective breeding, it is very plausible. As forQuoteThat would be overriding their instinct to stay away from extremely loud, gigantic metal things in the sky that could likely kill them.(http://www.media.desicolours.com/2009/june/birdswarm.jpg)
I am trying to figure out what kind of birds can pull a commercial plane 400 MPH+ whilst being able to fit in a planes compartments(Which are filled with passenger's stuff btw) and nothing has ever been seen.
If you think genetic engineering with todays technology makes this plausible you have been watching too many movies.
...which leaves us, once again, with no explanation for messed up flight times in the FE model.
I am trying to figure out what kind of birds can pull a commercial plane 400 MPH+ whilst being able to fit in a planes compartments(Which are filled with passenger's stuff btw) and nothing has ever been seen.
If you think genetic engineering with todays technology makes this plausible you have been watching too many movies.
Orangutans pound for pound are 8x stronger than Humans are. Just because it would be impossible for you to do it doesn't mean it is impossible for a souped of bird to do so. Again, you cannot see them because the birds are too small at such great distances to be able to make them out.
This is all just conjecture until someone provides real evidence that birds pull planes.
I am trying to figure out what kind of birds can pull a commercial plane 400 MPH+ whilst being able to fit in a planes compartments(Which are filled with passenger's stuff btw) and nothing has ever been seen.
If you think genetic engineering with todays technology makes this plausible you have been watching too many movies.
Orangutans pound for pound are 8x stronger than Humans are. Just because it would be impossible for you to do it doesn't mean it is impossible for a souped of bird to do so. Again, you cannot see them because the birds are too small at such great distances to be able to make them out.
I am trying to figure out what kind of birds can pull a commercial plane 400 MPH+ whilst being able to fit in a planes compartments(Which are filled with passenger's stuff btw) and nothing has ever been seen.
If you think genetic engineering with todays technology makes this plausible you have been watching too many movies.
Maybe the cargo hold is like the tent from that Harry Potter movie that is much bigger inside than it appears on the outside.
Wtf? That isn't a shop. Any picture gets pixellated like that when you zoom in that much. Nice trolling.
Wtf? That isn't a shop. Any picture gets pixellated like that when you zoom in that much. Nice trolling.
Also look at the wing. Note how the birds always look like they're in front of the wing or on the wing. Never behind the wing, even a little bit.
Also:
If one bird got into the engine (which it would with that flock) the plane goes down.
Wtf? That isn't a shop. Any picture gets pixellated like that when you zoom in that much. Nice trolling.What? An English Gentleman using the F word? Nobody is saying you painted the birds. I am saying that you superimposed two photos and forgot to clean the spaces between the birds. And I am saying that you are trolling the discussions with claims you know are not true, just to get a laugh.
That almost proves the fact that it isn't shopped by the fact that I would have to not only draw each bird, but then draw every little pixel between them. That would take more effort than to tell you to go to google images and search "birdswarm plane".
Unfortunately, though this theory is disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is still a troll win...
...they kept us going for several pages on the idea that birds pushed planes hundreds of miles per hour. I'm very disappointed in myself. :-\
This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.
That would be overriding their instinct to stay away from extremely loud, gigantic metal things in the sky that could likely kill them.
This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.
If you were paying attention, you'd find the pictures were answering this.That would be overriding their instinct to stay away from extremely loud, gigantic metal things in the sky that could likely kill them.
Birds are quite fine with being around planes. It doesn't surprise me though. A few of the birds used to pull planes could have escape and crossbred with other species, instilling in them the instinctual need to be around planes.
This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.
If you were paying attention, you'd find the pictures were answering this.
This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.
If you were paying attention, you'd find the pictures were answering this.
http://www.rif.org/
What part of my post suggested otherwise. Your photos damn your own point. Someone before posed that surely we'd have photographs. it was then said that people couldn't see the birds. therefore with all the pictures we have of south hemispheric flights, and no birds, your theory is debunked. Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
This is still idiotic.
The pictures only show that you would be able to see birds around a plane.
If you were paying attention, you'd find the pictures were answering this.
http://www.rif.org/
What part of my post suggested otherwise. Your photos damn your own point. Someone before posed that surely we'd have photographs. it was then said that people couldn't see the birds. therefore with all the pictures we have of south hemispheric flights, and no birds, your theory is debunked. Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
You are the one that needs to learn to read. If you were paying attention at all, you'd find these pics were posted showing birds Are not afraid of planes as lorddave said. You pic of the boat would show humans are not so afraid of boats they would avoid them.
Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement.
Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement.
Keep this thread on topic. I'll split the topic. You can find your posts concerning the split content in the Denial thread whose topic was of that post.I fail to see the relevance too.It is not relevant at all to the topic.
it is however relevant to the society
More than anything, this thread shows how we can't resist the urge to fall into the hands of the trolls.So I call a C&D for commenting on this thread. don't even respond to this post
Has anyone seen an argument worth a second look in the last pages of this thread? Meanwhile, the true attempts at discussing evolution are buried so deep that nobody will find them.
This thread is a wild success for the trolls, It shows it is easier to troll than to argue.
Please, let the troll's "arguments" shine by their own stupidity, instead of commenting on them.
Also, I have a photo with a bunch of people around a boat, does that mean I can prove that people push boats to make them go faster?
If you were making a statement along the lines of, "people push boats to make them go faster," and then showed pics of people next to boats it would indeed lend credibility to your statement.
Incorrect.
No, that is actually very correct. Let me save you the time and embarrassment of falling further into my word-trap. If you would read closely, I said that it would "lend credibility" to a statement. And it would do exactly that. If you made the statement, "All radishes are red," then showed a picture of a few red radishes, it would "lend credibility" to your statement. What it would not do is prove your statement true.
Now, what I said was that if you showed a picture of people by boats and said that, "people push boats to make them go quicker," it would "lend credibility" to that statement. What I did not say was that it would conclusively prove the boat pushing theory; merely make it more believable.
Endeavor to read for meaning as well as content.
Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?No, that is actually very correct. Let me save you the time and embarrassment of falling further into my word-trap. If you would read closely, I said that it would "lend credibility" to a statement. And it would do exactly that. If you made the statement, "All radishes are red," then showed a picture of a few red radishes, it would "lend credibility" to your statement. What it would not do is prove your statement true.
Now, what I said was that if you showed a picture of people by boats and said that, "people push boats to make them go quicker," it would "lend credibility" to that statement. What I did not say was that it would conclusively prove the boat pushing theory; merely make it more believable.
Endeavor to read for meaning as well as content.
Analogy fail.
1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen. Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.
2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.
In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.
1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen. Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.
2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.
In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.
Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.
Obviously. He nor I ever claimed otherwise.1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen. Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.
2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.
In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.
Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.
It remains however, that people besides boats is a lot weaker than red radishes.
In the case of the radishes, evidence is shown for a specific group to make a generalization of the whole
In the case of the people, you have not shown proof for the specific, but rather have shown one of the criteria for the theory has been met in a specific case. that is undeniably less powerful. in one case you have proof for a subset. in the other you have circumstantial evidence for a subset
ok.Obviously. He nor I ever claimed otherwise.1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.It shows they are at least in a position for it to happen. Just like if you could show they are not in such a position it would be evidence against it.
2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.
In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.
Now I'm not saying its strong evidence, or even something I would consider important but it is evidence even though its weak.
It remains however, that people besides boats is a lot weaker than red radishes.
In the case of the radishes, evidence is shown for a specific group to make a generalization of the whole
In the case of the people, you have not shown proof for the specific, but rather have shown one of the criteria for the theory has been met in a specific case. that is undeniably less powerful. in one case you have proof for a subset. in the other you have circumstantial evidence for a subset
Everyone but Pongo does(.. but he's a troll). Which means in reality: none.
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a troll, and I certainly don't call people trolls just because they disagree with me. Your entire reply falls apart.
1. If you claim that all radishes are red, then a picture showing red radishes sure helps.
2. If you claim that people push boats to make them go quicker, then a picture of people beside a boat shows nothing.
In the first claim, you show an example of your claim. In the second you simply show a boat accompanied with people. To make a decent analogy, you would have a picture of people pushing the boat(And in turn making it go quicker). This is obviously impossible to do, unless you're really good at analyzing photos, as a still photo can't show movement.
No, we call you a troll, because you post ideas that are blatantly incorrect. when A GR physicist hears a theory by someone into QM, they don't consider it trolling, because its still good science. however, when someone tells us that birds push planes 400mph, now that is trollingEveryone but Pongo does(.. but he's a troll). Which means in reality: none.
You call anyone a troll that has a conflicting theory to your indoctrinated ways. It's almost like a conditioned response. I could be willing to concede that I have not presented indelible proof of how evolution proves a flat earth, but what in the non-mathematical sciences does? (Does prove anything completely that is.) The point of this thread is to show one of the many subtle indications of a flat earth that we overlook everyday. All the indications are out there, you just have to look for them. Personally, I think, when presented with these unconventional ideas, is when your brain is unable to cope and defaults to calling people trolls.
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a troll, and I certainly don't call people trolls just because they disagree with me. Your entire reply falls apart.
Are you an idiot? Only half of his post has to do with you disagreeing with him. Read it again.
Your entire reply falls apart.
You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.That was the point of the analogy. by boat, I mean a large vessel of several thousand tonnes, like a cruise liner.
You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.That was the point of the analogy. by boat, I mean a large vessel of several thousand tonnes, like a cruise liner.
the point is not that they cannot push it, rather that a photo of showing them in close proximity only shows that they can get into close proximity. there is still yet to prove that the people can push the boat at that speed, or that they actually do push boats to make them go uber fast.
You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.That was the point of the analogy. by boat, I mean a large vessel of several thousand tonnes, like a cruise liner.
the point is not that they cannot push it, rather that a photo of showing them in close proximity only shows that they can get into close proximity. there is still yet to prove that the people can push the boat at that speed, or that they actually do push boats to make them go uber fast.
Ahh, I see. So posting a picture of people by a boat would lend credibility to your claim, whether true or not, if you chose to make it.
You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
I'm fairly certain that people don't posses the strength to accelerate a cruise liner to twice its max speedYou know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
That wasn't my point.I'm fairly certain that people don't posses the strength to accelerate a cruise liner to twice its max speedYou know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
I'm fairly certain that people don't posses the strength to accelerate a cruise liner to twice its max speedYou know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
I'm fairly certain that people don't posses the strength to accelerate a cruise liner to twice its max speedYou know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
Just because your muscles are inferior does not mean it isn't true.
I'm fairly certain that people don't posses the strength to accelerate a cruise liner to twice its max speedYou know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
Just because your muscles are inferior does not mean it isn't true.
Though the fact that no one got that strong muscles means it's false.
You know, so far I've been ignoring the most obvious argument available. If I (or anyone) pushed a boat, it would go faster.
Have you ever tried pushing a boat that is already under power?
Don't forget you'd have to submit yourself to genetic engineering and you would have to let me put you on coke.Does anyone else need proof that EnglshGentleman is a troll?
Evidence?
Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
I suggest you go swim underneath a cruiser. You'd be able to see the scores of sailfish quite easily.
Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
I suggest you go swim underneath a cruiser. You'd be able to see the scores of sailfish quite easily.
It's not my job to prove your theory.
You made the claim, therefore it's on you to prove it. It doesn't stand til you have proof.Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
I suggest you go swim underneath a cruiser. You'd be able to see the scores of sailfish quite easily.
It's not my job to prove your theory.
Then go swimming and disprove it. Till then it stands.
You made the claim, therefore it's on you to prove it. It doesn't stand til you have proof.Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
I suggest you go swim underneath a cruiser. You'd be able to see the scores of sailfish quite easily.
It's not my job to prove your theory.
Then go swimming and disprove it. Till then it stands.
Oh good, another argument.
I see nothing backing your theory, so why should we waste time proving it wrong?You made the claim, therefore it's on you to prove it. It doesn't stand til you have proof.Evidence?
The cruisers obviously wouldn't allow photos or evidence of their existance to be open to the public because of the bad PR that would result because of their enslavement of these admirable sea creatures.
So no evidence then.
I suggest you go swim underneath a cruiser. You'd be able to see the scores of sailfish quite easily.
It's not my job to prove your theory.
Then go swimming and disprove it. Till then it stands.
I assure you that trying to call burden of proof will turn into a fruitless arguement. Everone else in the thread can attest to this. You are the one claiming that my theory is false, therefore it is on you to disprove it.
So far I see zero reasons why my theory is incorrect.
I see nothing backing your theory, so why should we waste time proving it wrong?
Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Oh good, another pointless argument with a devil's advocate.
Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.Oh good, another pointless argument with a devil's advocate.
Misquoting someone is intellectually dishonest.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.Oh good, another pointless argument with a devil's advocate.
Misquoting someone is intellectually dishonest.
My apologies, you caught me in a moment of weakness. I'll send you a letter in the mail with a full length apology written with it.Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Wanna just raise the white flag general?
Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.Oh good, another pointless argument with a devil's advocate.
Misquoting someone is intellectually dishonest.
My apologies, you caught me in a moment of weakness. I'll send you a letter in the mail with a full length apology written with it.Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Wanna just raise the white flag general?
I eagerly await your written apology.
I have a theory that sailfish do not push boats, it is correct until you provide evidence against it.
Since we are now on the topic of boats, I shall submit that cruisers may very well use sailfish to pull their boats in the similar fashion that airplanes use birds.
Sailfish already can swim up to 75 knots which is more than enough for a cruiser.
I see nothing backing your theory, so why should we waste time proving it wrong?
I'm going to request that you stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss burden of proof and whether I inspire you to post you can make a thread and do it elsewhere.
I see nothing backing your theory, so why should we waste time proving it wrong?
I'm going to request that you stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss burden of proof and whether I inspire you to post you can make a thread and do it elsewhere.
How about you prove it?Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Also how big do you think this conspiracy is?Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
Also how big do you think this conspiracy is?Oh good, another argument.
Yes, it is.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
This is a completely different conspiracy than the one wanting to coverup the shape of the Earth.
Unless somebody has objections to roided out sailfish on coke pulling cruisers, these may yet be an early victory for Flat Earth.
EVIDENCE OR GET OUTSee what happens when you try to discuss serious science with a troll? It is best that you let the troll's arguments shine by their stupidity. Even non-scientists understand that the tens of thousands of horsepower needed to push or pull a plane or a boat are totally out of reach from animals, even on coke.
EVIDENCE OR GET OUTSee what happens when you try to discuss serious science with a troll? It is best that you let the troll's arguments shine by their stupidity. Even non-scientists understand that the tens of thousands of horsepower needed to push or pull a plane or a boat are totally out of reach from animals, even on coke.
But the discussion goes on and on, and it will never lead to the admission of trolling.
Remember the thread about Australia not existing? If not, you can look for it when Monty Python is unavailable.
Please stop feeding the trolls.
EVIDENCE OR GET OUTSee what happens when you try to discuss serious science with a troll? It is best that you let the troll's arguments shine by their stupidity. Even non-scientists understand that the tens of thousands of horsepower needed to push or pull a plane or a boat are totally out of reach from animals, even on coke.
But the discussion goes on and on, and it will never lead to the admission of trolling.
Remember the thread about Australia not existing? If not, you can look for it when Monty Python is unavailable.
Please stop feeding the trolls.
Nobody ever seems to listen to you. However, I do, and I agree. I should stop feeding those who continue to close their eyes to the fact that sailfish pull boats.
lrn2Russelsteapot.
Nobody ever seems to listen to you. However, I do, and I agree. I should stop feeding those who continue to close their eyes to the fact that sailfish pull boats.
lrn2Russelsteapot.
Nobody ever seems to listen to you. However, I do, and I agree. I should stop feeding those who continue to close their eyes to the fact that sailfish pull boats.
...And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
Welcome to FES.
I find it sad that the very few posts that even mention evolution in a thread about evolution is minimal. Not even 30 out of some 360. And of those, the key elements of evolution, like mutations and natural selection, are rarer still....And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
I find it sad that the very few posts that even mention evolution in a thread about evolution is minimal. Not even 30 out of some 360. And of those, the key elements of evolution, like mutations and natural selection, are rarer still....And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
So it is important that people see how the trolls overtake discussions, so other, less contaminated threads may be saved.
I find it sad that the very few posts that even mention evolution in a thread about evolution is minimal. Not even 30 out of some 360. And of those, the key elements of evolution, like mutations and natural selection, are rarer still....And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
I find it sad that the very few posts that even mention evolution in a thread about evolution is minimal. Not even 30 out of some 360. And of those, the key elements of evolution, like mutations and natural selection, are rarer still....And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
So it is important that people see how the trolls overtake discussions, so other, less contaminated threads may be saved.
I find it sad that the very few posts that even mention evolution in a thread about evolution is minimal. Not even 30 out of some 360. And of those, the key elements of evolution, like mutations and natural selection, are rarer still....And the thread is back.
We are all desperately trying to make sense of birds pulling planes, fish pulling boats, and we do not simply let the thread shine by its own stupidity and die.
Please do not feed the trolls.
I find it ironic that it is the people that are opposed to this thread that keep bumping it.
So it is important that people see how the trolls overtake discussions, so other, less contaminated threads may be saved.
It's not my fault, nor an indicator of the integrity of the idea, that my opposition cannot coherently formulate a reply within the context of evolutionary terms.
Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
No. Indeed, very no. Unnatural selection is still selection.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
But be careful, a 30% stronger animal is well within the realms of artificial selection, while a bird strong enough to pull an airplane is a bad sci-fi movie, or a Fred Flintstone cartoon.No. Indeed, very no. Unnatural selection is still selection.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
Well its not just selecting what the animal breeds with,its using some kind of never before seen drug to alter an animal completely.No. Indeed, very no. Unnatural selection is still selection.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
I hate to be a stickler with details, but Evolution is a whole framework of processes and mechanisms, which encompasses allele change, natural selection and artificial selection.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
No. Artificial selection is simply changing what characteristics will raise the fitness of an animal. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci.
Yeah, what he said.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
No. Artificial selection is simply changing what characteristics will raise the fitness of an animal. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci.
I hate to be a stickler with details, but Evolution is a whole framework of processes and mechanisms, which encompasses allele change, natural selection and artificial selection.
Both the creation of diversity through allele change and the progressive adaptation of a species to its surroundings through natural selection are mechanisms of Evolution. And yes, the modification of the rules above by human hands are also a mechanism of Evolution, even though the adaptation is not necessarily what natural selection would produce.
I hate to be a stickler with details, but Evolution is a whole framework of processes and mechanisms, which encompasses allele change, natural selection and artificial selection.Just because it is artificial selection, it doesn't mean it still is not evolution.Yes it does.
That is more like mutating the genes,whilst evolution is change in a species inherited traits via succesion.
No. Artificial selection is simply changing what characteristics will raise the fitness of an animal. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci.
Both the creation of diversity through allele change and the progressive adaptation of a species to its surroundings through natural selection are mechanisms of Evolution. And yes, the modification of the rules above by human hands are also a mechanism of Evolution, even though the adaptation is not necessarily what natural selection would produce.
Please show me the dictionary definition you are talking about, since I cannot find one that even mentions alleles.No. Artificial selection is simply changing what characteristics will raise the fitness of an animal. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci.I hate to be a stickler with details, but Evolution is a whole framework of processes and mechanisms, which encompasses allele change, natural selection and artificial selection.
Both the creation of diversity through allele change and the progressive adaptation of a species to its surroundings through natural selection are mechanisms of Evolution. And yes, the modification of the rules above by human hands are also a mechanism of Evolution, even though the adaptation is not necessarily what natural selection would produce.
I gave you the actual definition of evolution.
So..... no, you weren't being a stickler. You were being a dumbass.
All of the things that you said "were a whole framework of processes and mechanisms" all of these processes from genetic drift to natural selection lead to different frequencies of alleles. The null hypothesis for evolution within a species for a certain gene is to see if the frequency of a gene meets with the same frequency it would have if mating were completely random with no competition.
Also, thank you for agreeing that artificial selection IS evolution, I would also like to point out that artificial selection will never give the same product as natural selection or we wouldn't bother to take the time and breed the damn things selectively. We would just put them in the wild for a decade and catch the new animals they produce.
..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.
..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.
You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.
Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.
edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.
Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between speciesIt is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".
Epic Fail for Raist.You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.
Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.
edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.QuoteEvolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between speciesIt is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".
Not even your selected quote supports your definition that says Evolution is "the change of allele frequency over time".
Just give it up: the changes in alleles is a part of Evolution, not Evolution. And your capacity to read scientific material is even worse than that of this dumbass, so I can only imagine the epithet that correctly describes you.
You are still failing miserably. Lets see the quote from Wikipedia:..."The change of allele frequency over time" is pretty much the standard definition.Therefore it will be very easy for you to find any dictionary or encyclopedia where Evolution is defined in terms of allele change. Several are available online, for your convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
it's in quite a few more words than I used, but if you are as smart as you want to seem just a few seconds of reading should confirm that my link matches what I said.
Edit: also, evolution being discovered before genes means nothing to the definition. In science definitions can be changed to fit reality.
edit edit: if you are new to this subject http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html this link will confirm what I said and is a rather interesting read.QuoteEvolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. A trait is a particular characteristic, such as eye color, height, or a behavior, that is expressed when an organism's genes interact with its environment. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. The main cause of variation is mutation, which changes the sequence of a gene. Altered genes, or alleles, are then inherited by offspring. There can sometimes also be transfer of genes between speciesIt is clearly stated that "altered genes, or alleles" are related to "the main cause of variation", and are part of the "processes that constantly introduce variation in traits". The other part mentioned when they said "Evolution is the product of two opposing forces" is the "processes that make particular variants become more common or rare".
Not even your selected quote supports your definition that says Evolution is "the change of allele frequency over time".
Just give it up: the changes in alleles is a part of Evolution, not Evolution. And your capacity to read scientific material is even worse than that of this dumbass, so I can only imagine the epithet that correctly describes you.
I don't think that last post will help so I will bring in the null hypothesis for evolution in a population.You still do not accept that you made a simple, clear and very short claim, where you declare that "Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles at a specific loci", made the clear statement that "I gave you the actual definition of evolution", called me a dumbass because I do not concur, and still cannot show even one place where Evolution is defined as a change in frequency of alleles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
They hardy weinberg model makes certain assumptions, and these assumptions basically say that evolution is not happening in a population. If the model is true there is a certain constant distribution of genes and alleles in a population. If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.
This literally means that evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population.
I don't think that last post will help so I will bring in the null hypothesis for evolution in a population.Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A). Hence you've not shown that (A=B). EPIC fail for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle
They hardy weinberg model makes certain assumptions, and these assumptions basically say that evolution is not happening in a population. If the model is true there is a certain constant distribution of genes and alleles in a population. If the hardy weinberg model is wrong, aka there has been a change in distribution of genes and alleles, then evolution has occurred.
This literally means that evolution IS the change in genes or allele frequency in a population.
Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.
Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.
You seem to like saying the exact same thing over and over despite being wrong. Please reference:Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply the contrapositive (If B then A).Well, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.
I suspect that you have some intelligence, but not the education regarding this logic error, so I'll spend some time trying to explain this carefully.Please wake up, as he most certainly did. His quote showed (If A then B), but he claimed (A=B) that requires (If B then A). Now do you understand?Wrong again. (If A then B) does not imply theWell, it sure is a good thing that he didn't imply that.contrapositiveinverse (If B then A).
Please note that saying the same thing twice won't suddenly make a statement true, or a question justified in any way.
Your A/B implication is completely unrelated to Raist's post, and saying it several times won't help.
Again, do remember that saying the same thing, just using slightly different words, does not affect their credibility, at least not in a positive way.
You seem to like saying the exact same thing over and over despite being wrong.
Yeah, you've made a point there, but it's like with squares and rectangles. Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. If A then B, but if B then not necessarily A. Raist has defined a square as a rectangle, which is not at all incorrect, but might be inaccurate. However, once again, you are picking on words instead of focusing on the general point.You're right. I probably should stop posting so far off topic here. I disagree that we can call a fundamental logic error 'picking on words'. Raist has really failed, and we need to stop similar logic errors by either side.
Now, since you're trying to derail this thread, feel free to reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variation and carry on.
This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).The discussion is not with Webster's. The discussion is with people that believe themselves so expert in the subject that their definition is better than all the published definitions, and use ad hominem attacks against those who disagree.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.And we should believe you because... why exactly?
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."
My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.And we should believe you because... why exactly?
You have a history of reasonable, well thought posts, which is a lot better than you can see on Pongo's or Raist's posts, so I am willing to accept your word. Anyway, you also felt the need to to explain that this is the "most basic level", so I imagine you also feel that this definition does not give enough information.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."
Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.
And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.
And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.
This is the age-old Yoda fallacy, by invoking it, you make yourself appear to be a centuries-old Jedi master; as wise as you are skilled with a lightsaber. It does not make your arguments stronger and I would appropriate it if you refrained from using it in the serious forums.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."
Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.
I wasn't using a fallacy appeal. I gave a simplified analogy to show where his logic breaks down. His analogy was the fallacious one. And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?This is ludicrous. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Raist is right. I've heard people define evolution as the survival of a gene pool, not the individual. If I cannot find this exact definition in Webster's it does not mean that it's incorrect (Though one could make the argument that it's definitively incorrect, but that's just an argument of semantics).
A PHD in biology will give the definition I gave word for word. Which is enough for me at least considering no one here comes close.
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."
Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.
I wasn't using a fallacy appeal. I gave a simplified analogy to show where his logic breaks down. His analogy was the fallacious one. And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.
You present his argument in a way that makes it seem ridiculous, thus it is an appeal to ridicule.
An appeal to ridicule does not have to contain a lie.
My accusation is correct.
PHDs in biology have published definitions. Why is it that all the PHDs you talk with disagree with the published definitions, and yet, do not publish their findings themselves?
Nobody is saying that the change in allele frequency is not a part of Evolution. It is just not all of Evolution.
Your argument is like when I say that a car is a set of tires, because all other things I think about when I discuss a car are caused or cause the tires to be as they are. My argument is (sort of) right, but the tires are just one part of the car.
No. My argument is "a car is a 4 wheeled device that gets you places using an internal combustion engine." You are then saying "IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. IT USES SPARK PLUGS AND A RADIATOR."
Please refrain from using the fallacy appeal to ridicule.
I wasn't using a fallacy appeal. I gave a simplified analogy to show where his logic breaks down. His analogy was the fallacious one. And I'm sorry I used caps, but the last time I checked capitalization does not a fallacy make.
You present his argument in a way that makes it seem ridiculous, thus it is an appeal to ridicule.
An appeal to ridicule does not have to contain a lie.
My accusation is correct.
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
My biology professor (who got his Ph.D. at Harvard) gave the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequencies in a population. The mechanisms for evolution are obviously far more complex, but at its most basic level, that is all he said it was.And we should believe you because... why exactly?
You have a history of reasonable, well thought posts, which is a lot better than you can see on Pongo's or Raist's posts, so I am willing to accept your word. Anyway, you also felt the need to to explain that this is the "most basic level", so I imagine you also feel that this definition does not give enough information.
An appeal to ridicule does not have to contain a lie.
My accusation is correct.
Don't call fallacy if you don't know what it is.QuoteAppeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
Raist was making a perfectly fine analogy. He didn't create a strawman, and he didn't make anything ridiculous. He was making a point that required an example.
Okay sure. Here's what I don't get:
He states that flying N/S is more efficient than flying around the edge of the disk, so since birds fly N/S, the Earth is flat. But doesn't E/W not matter at all, because birds are only trying to get to higher or lower latitudes anyway? Shouldn't going directly N/S be most efficient in both models?
I hope I explained myself well...
Evolution favors the individual that can best adapt to its environment. This superior adaptability translates to more successful genes being passed onto its offspring until such a time that the species' gene pool is saturated with only the best genes.Actually, evolution favors individuals that are best adapted to their environment. Natural selection acts only on existing diversity, you cannot create new traits, they must already exist unless they were brought about by mutation. Anyway, your argument is flawed in the fact that the Earth is proven to be round, so the birds that you used as evidence are clearly able to migrate on a round Earth.
Evolution favors the individual that can best adapt to its environment. This superior adaptability translates to more successful genes being passed onto its offspring until such a time that the species' gene pool is saturated with only the best genes.Actually, evolution favors individuals that are best adapted to their environment. Natural selection acts only on existing diversity, you cannot create new traits, they must already exist unless they were brought about by mutation. Anyway, your argument is flawed in the fact that the Earth is proven to be round, so the birds that you used as evidence are clearly able to migrate on a round Earth.
Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
(http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/bird-plane.jpg)
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are used for the main system of flight.
This thread diminished into semantics. I shall revive it with some of it's original integrity so we can discuss this matter further.Wow! A whole company in one photo. It's amazing. Maybe though, you have that wrong, and a lot more.
P.S. What a beautiful coincidence for this to be on a fresh page.Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are not used for the main system of flight.
This thread diminished into semantics. I shall revive it with some of it's original integrity so we can discuss this matter further.I'm sorry but how is a bird that can reach 170 mph (in a dive) supposed to help push planes that cruise at more than 200 mph?
P.S. What a beautiful coincidence for this to be on a fresh page.Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
(http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/bird-plane.jpg)
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are not used for the main system of flight.
They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
Sounds like a bunch of conjecture to me. Where is your proof?
So no evidence then?
So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
Birds help out aviators all the time.
(http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/05BA520E-0F74-4A4F-8E7B-2A3409B60E05/HE003646.jpg)
Here is a load pulling a jet on some thin string.
(http://www.worldhovercraft.org/insider/img/apr05/BirdStrike2.jpg)
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures ... DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
How about the same evidenceyouLord Wilmore would accept proving the world is round?
Berny
So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
How about the same evidenceyouLord Wilmore would accept proving the world is round?
Berny
Irrelevant. We are talking about the evidence required for birds pulling planes. Photographic evidence seems to be rejected, so what do you want?
So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
I would have done that for you, but I just lost my job. I'm gonna miss those guys. Donald and Pippa (two Canada geese) used to pull my aircraft. I hope the new pilot will look after them. Donald likes his wings massaged after a hard day's pulling. Pippa is seed-intolerant. I left instructions for the new pilots, but you love 'pulling birds' like your own children after a while.So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
I require verifiable evidence of birds visibly pulling planes.
Thork is a pilot, surely he could take a picture of such a thing from his plane!
Recorded testimonials from the birds themselves. Vetted by a known neutral hollow earth believer.
I would have done that for you, but I just lost my job. I'm gonna miss those guys. Donald and Pippa (two Canada geese) used to pull my aircraft. I hope the new pilot will look after them. Donald likes his wings massaged after a hard day's pulling. Pippa is seed-intolerant. I left instructions for the new pilots, but you love 'pulling birds' like your own children after a while.
They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
Hmm... It would be interesting to do a cost-benefit analysis of raising flocks of genetically engineered birds to pull airliners.
Shame on you for lying.I would have done that for you, but I just lost my job. I'm gonna miss those guys. Donald and Pippa (two Canada geese) used to pull my aircraft. I hope the new pilot will look after them. Donald likes his wings massaged after a hard day's pulling. Pippa is seed-intolerant. I left instructions for the new pilots, but you love 'pulling birds' like your own children after a while.So no evidence then?
What do you require as evidence? You are starting to sound like sillyrob, asking for evidence, but then not accepting it when it is given.
I require verifiable evidence of birds visibly pulling planes.
Thork is a pilot, surely he could take a picture of such a thing from his plane!
They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
Hmm... It would be interesting to do a cost-benefit analysis of raising flocks of genetically engineered birds to pull airliners.
Lets take a look, shall we? Having to make progressively better planes, or having genetically engineered birds that are trained to fly to destinations.
Plane
Costs: Having to re engineer planes and thus spending millions of dollars in production and research in new materials and systems.
Benefits: Over the short term it won't cost as much and you would not have to build storage space for their homes and upkeep. You also would not have to pay to find a substance for them.
Plane+Birds
Costs: Upfront it would cost a great deal to find a adequate substance to give the birds the drive to help pull your plane. Also upkeep of the birds and such.
Benefits: Over the long run you would save money as the birds would evolve to fly faster and faster so they can recieve what they crave at their destination quicker. There would be no need to re engineer planes as evolution would make your planes move faster. In fact, they birds would most likely grow stronger as well meaning you could make the planes lighter saving more money.
This is all just conjecture until someone provides real evidence that birds pull planes.
They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
Hmm... It would be interesting to do a cost-benefit analysis of raising flocks of genetically engineered birds to pull airliners.
Lets take a look, shall we? Having to make progressively better planes, or having genetically engineered birds that are trained to fly to destinations.
Plane
Costs: Having to re engineer planes and thus spending millions of dollars in production and research in new materials and systems.
Benefits: Over the short term it won't cost as much and you would not have to build storage space for their homes and upkeep. You also would not have to pay to find a substance for them.
Plane+Birds
Costs: Upfront it would cost a great deal to find a adequate substance to give the birds the drive to help pull your plane. Also upkeep of the birds and such.
Benefits: Over the long run you would save money as the birds would evolve to fly faster and faster so they can recieve what they crave at their destination quicker. There would be no need to re engineer planes as evolution would make your planes move faster. In fact, they birds would most likely grow stronger as well meaning you could make the planes lighter saving more money.
I looked at a plane fly over the sky, and don't see a bunch of birds around it.
explanation please?
I live quite near to an airport, and I am able to see commercial airliners when they fly very low overhead. I have examined them numerous times, even with binoculars, and have never seen any indication that birds are pulling them along.
Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?They would use genetically enhanced falcons, and no, they wouldn't be pushing the planes, they'd be pulling them.
Hmm... It would be interesting to do a cost-benefit analysis of raising flocks of genetically engineered birds to pull airliners.
Lets take a look, shall we? Having to make progressively better planes, or having genetically engineered birds that are trained to fly to destinations.
Plane
Costs: Having to re engineer planes and thus spending millions of dollars in production and research in new materials and systems.
Benefits: Over the short term it won't cost as much and you would not have to build storage space for their homes and upkeep. You also would not have to pay to find a substance for them.
Plane+Birds
Costs: Upfront it would cost a great deal to find a adequate substance to give the birds the drive to help pull your plane. Also upkeep of the birds and such.
Benefits: Over the long run you would save money as the birds would evolve to fly faster and faster so they can recieve what they crave at their destination quicker. There would be no need to re engineer planes as evolution would make your planes move faster. In fact, they birds would most likely grow stronger as well meaning you could make the planes lighter saving more money.
I looked at a plane fly over the sky, and don't see a bunch of birds around it.
explanation please?
As it is, commercial planes appear tiny in the sky, even though in reality they are gigantic. Is it really a surprise that you wouldn't be capable of seeing the birds?
Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
Evidence of what? That you can't read? Evidence above of that.Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
You are a pilot? Really? Fascinating. At first you are a teacher, than a tele-marketer, and now a pilot.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Evidence of what? That you can't read? Evidence above of that.Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
You are a pilot? Really? Fascinating. At first you are a teacher, than a tele-marketer, and now a pilot.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I find that when I fly the plane
Quote was - I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size.I find that when I fly the plane
Misquoting again? Goodness, such a typical FEer tactic.Evidence of what? That you can't read? Evidence above of that.Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
You are a pilot? Really? Fascinating. At first you are a teacher, than a tele-marketer, and now a pilot.
Do you have any evidence of this?I find that when I fly the plane
Misquoting again? Goodness, such a typical FEer tactic.Evidence of what? That you can't read? Evidence above of that.Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
You are a pilot? Really? Fascinating. At first you are a teacher, than a tele-marketer, and now a pilot.
Do you have any evidence of this?I find that when I fly the plane
Show that I left out a comma and I'll say I'm sorry. At least I didn't jump to conclusion with half a quote. AKAIK, commas are not required in dependent clauses. Now, if you're done with the typical FE diversion over commas, can you answer the challenge over your outlandish claim?Misquoting again? Goodness, such a typical FEer tactic.Evidence of what? That you can't read? Evidence above of that.Really? I find that when I fly the plane remains the same size. When I look out the windows I don't see any birds pulling. Why not?
You are a pilot? Really? Fascinating. At first you are a teacher, than a tele-marketer, and now a pilot.
Do you have any evidence of this?I find that when I fly the plane
What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
Also, you guys haven't seen birds pushing/pulling (pulling) planes because they are only employeed in the southern "hemisphere".That's odd... Thork had two assigned Canada geese in the UK. I've flown quite extensively in the southern hemisphere. You'd think that you'd be able to produce photos of these birds by now. What's the problem?
What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
If you quoted only this part "I find that when I fly the plane" then you definitely suggested it. You can't read it otherwise in that case.What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
It does not. I never suggested it did. I hold to the ClockTower wrote an incoherent sentence.
QFIWhat was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
It does not. I never suggested it did. I hold to the ClockTower wrote an incoherent sentence.
QFIWhat was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
It does not. I never suggested it did. I hold to the ClockTower wrote an incoherent sentence.
The red one? It depends how you read it. It misses either the subject to which to hold to or who wrote. It kind of doesn't make sense as it is.QFIWhat was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
It does not. I never suggested it did. I hold to the ClockTower wrote an incoherent sentence.
That sentence is fine, not sure what your problem is with it.
The red one? It depends how you read it. It misses either the subject to which to hold to or who wrote. It kind of doesn't make sense as it is.QFIWhat was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.Does your version(if you put comma where the meaningful part of your sentence ended) make more sense - I find that when I fly the plane, remains the same size. ?
From what I know of you, the latter made more sense.
It does not. I never suggested it did. I hold to the ClockTower wrote an incoherent sentence.
That sentence is fine, not sure what your problem is with it.
What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.
You're always so eager to argue semantics when it suits your purposes, such as here:What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.
You're always so eager to argue semantics when it suits your purposes, such as here:What was I supposed to think? Either you deliberately left out a comma, or you made a sentence that made no sense.
The above post is evidence that your assertion is incorrect. I could have kept arguing it, but I just chose not to because I simply didn't feel like it.
I thought we were friends. :(
This thread diminished into semantics. I shall revive it with some of it's original integrity so we can discuss this matter further.
P.S. What a beautiful coincidence for this to be on a fresh page.Here is a photo of a company that is attempting to lure birds to their plane so they can easily catch and tether them to it thus reducing the costs of having to catch and train them.
(http://www.funny-potato.com/images/planes/bird-plane.jpg)
Peregrine falcons also can reach speeds up to 170 mph, it is not unlikely that for small passenger planes a few of these creatures are used for the main system of flight.
The other day a friend and I were involved in a high speed chase. My car maxes out at 140 mph and the police were gaining on us so I had my friend jump out and push the car faster. We were able to double our speed. I know it sounds implausible, but he has been exercising a lot lately and I'm pretty sure he took some vitamins that morning.
When you're not being a pedantic asshole for no reason, sure. Oh wait...
When you're not being a pedantic asshole for no reason, sure. Oh wait...
How else can anybody ever talk with ClockTower?
When you're not being a pedantic asshole for no reason, sure. Oh wait...
How else can anybody ever talk with ClockTower?
With a hammer and a very sharp nail.
On a serious note; has CT ever posted in a light hearted fashion? I can't think of a single post of his that has held intentional humour.
When you're not being a pedantic asshole for no reason, sure. Oh wait...
How else can anybody ever talk with ClockTower?
With a hammer and a very sharp nail.
On a serious note; has CT ever posted in a light hearted fashion? I can't think of a single post of his that has held intentional humour.
Not that I have witnessed. This is why I said he has no soul, and why you almost have to speak pedantically with him, otherwise he acts as though he has no clue what you are talking about.
What wing works better at low pressure? Contact Boeing, if the Earth is round you've got an easy path to space!
There is an easy way to resolve this debate. Why don't we actually do the math and see what answer we get?Yes, what are you saying? You surmise the distance is further for round earth. So do you agree with the OP? If not, you have not stated why not. You only confirmed the distance is further as he already pointed out.
Assuming a spherical earth
For our example we shall use the Bar-headed Goose. It holds the record as the world's highest flying bird, migrating approximately 1500 km at an altitude of approximately 10,000 m. The radius of the earth is approximately 6367.5 km. By C=2*pi*r we can calculate the circumference of a sphere (where c=circumference, pi=3.1415..., and r = radius). Therefore the distance around the earth is approximately C=2*3.1415*6367.5km or C=40,008 km . If a bird is flying around the earth at an altitude of 10,000 m (or 10km) then the radius of its flight would be 6367.5+10 or 6377.5km. We perform the same calculation again to find that the total distance around the earth at 10,000 m above sea level to be 40,071km. What is the difference between those distances? 63 km, or .16% the total distance had the bird been flying at ground level. By symmetry, this proportion would hold true regardless if the bird flew all the way around the world or just 1500 km. That means that a bird flying a distance of 1500 km at an altitude of 10000 m would only fly an extra 2.36 km (.16*1500), which is a distance shorter than its altitude by almost four times. Note that this is an extreme case, and that most birds fly at much lower altitudes.
Need I say more?
There is an easy way to resolve this debate. Why don't we actually do the math and see what answer we get?Yes, what are you saying? You surmise the distance is further for round earth. So do you agree with the OP? If not, you have not stated why not. You only confirmed the distance is further as he already pointed out.
Assuming a spherical earth
For our example we shall use the Bar-headed Goose. It holds the record as the world's highest flying bird, migrating approximately 1500 km at an altitude of approximately 10,000 m. The radius of the earth is approximately 6367.5 km. By C=2*pi*r we can calculate the circumference of a sphere (where c=circumference, pi=3.1415..., and r = radius). Therefore the distance around the earth is approximately C=2*3.1415*6367.5km or C=40,008 km . If a bird is flying around the earth at an altitude of 10,000 m (or 10km) then the radius of its flight would be 6367.5+10 or 6377.5km. We perform the same calculation again to find that the total distance around the earth at 10,000 m above sea level to be 40,071km. What is the difference between those distances? 63 km, or .16% the total distance had the bird been flying at ground level. By symmetry, this proportion would hold true regardless if the bird flew all the way around the world or just 1500 km. That means that a bird flying a distance of 1500 km at an altitude of 10000 m would only fly an extra 2.36 km (.16*1500), which is a distance shorter than its altitude by almost four times. Note that this is an extreme case, and that most birds fly at much lower altitudes.
Need I say more?
Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.Justify this claim please. Wouldn't the higher flight be more efficient and safer?
Justify this claim please. How is flying at 6500 ft safer than flying 1000 ft over the pacific? Is the air not thinner so more lift is required and hence more flapping?Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.Justify this claim please. Wouldn't the higher flight be more efficient and safer?
What claim did I make? Please learn to read.Justify this claim please. How is flying at 6500 ft safer than flying 1000 ft over the pacific? Is the air not thinner so more lift is required and hence more flapping?Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.Justify this claim please. Wouldn't the higher flight be more efficient and safer?
Would be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.
So you have no point to make.What claim did I make? Please learn to read.Justify this claim please. How is flying at 6500 ft safer than flying 1000 ft over the pacific? Is the air not thinner so more lift is required and hence more flapping?Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.Justify this claim please. Wouldn't the higher flight be more efficient and safer?
Since you seem challenged in just reading, let me repeat my challenge by highlighting it in red above. Do tell us how you considered all factors in making your claim.Would be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.So you have no point to make.What claim did I make? Please learn to read.Justify this claim please. How is flying at 6500 ft safer than flying 1000 ft over the pacific? Is the air not thinner so more lift is required and hence more flapping?Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.Justify this claim please. Wouldn't the higher flight be more efficient and safer?
As for my claim, the bird is flying at 6,500 ft for 11,000 km at 30 mph. Using the math posted earlier by REr's in this thread, you can see the journey is now 2 hours longer.
Would be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.
lol. Well that's the debate isn't it? If the earth is flat it makes no odds to them, same distance. If its round, they need a reason to endure the extra distance.Would be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.
Yeah but does it say why? I've not read the link I must admit.
False. Both the effort and distance would be greater at high altitudes even if FE. Typical of you to ignore the facts.lol. Well that's the debate isn't it? If the earth is flat it makes no odds to them, same distance. If its round, they need a reason to endure the extra distance.Would be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.
Yeah but does it say why? I've not read the link I must admit.
lol. Well that's the debate isn't it? If the earth is flat it makes no odds to them, same distance. If its round, they need a reason to endure the extra distance. I'd like to know what that reason is, but it's too late in the day to find outWould be a good idea to investigate fully the evolutionary reasons behind various birds' cruising altitudes before stumbling to conjectures like this.Have done. My link for the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit showed it flew 11,000km at 6,500 ft.
Yeah but does it say why? I've not read the link I must admit.
But FE doesn't have the extra distance. The bird can easily gain height with thermals. Why all the extra miles to fly round a curved earth?
Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
I do not believe Pongo is suggesting the extra distance will kill the birds. I think he is suggesting that birds have evolved to be excellent navigators and would choose the shorter distance for themselves. Why would the birds want to spend an extra hour or so flying to a destination?
Let me give the example of the Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar-tailed_Godwit
This bird makes a staggering 11,000 km trip almost all across the Pacific Ocean (so no obsticles). It does it at a mere 30mph in one go on the wing at 6,500ft.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307832/Bar-tailed-godwits-non-stop-Pacific-crossing.html
Now this bird would save 2 hours flying lower on its non-stop flight.
Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
Lower altitude = more turbulence = more resistance = no time savingsIncorrect. Low level turbulence is usually caused by obstacles such as mountains. hills or buildings. These birds fly over the sea. Turbulence off waves is negligible. However turbulence worsens as you climb as wind speed picks up. This causes greater variations in windsheer. That causes turbulence.
As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
Really? Please justify your claim.As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.Really? Please justify your claim.As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.Really? Please justify your claim.As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.Really? Please justify your claim.As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
So you still have nothing. Noted and expected.They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.You just claimed that flying higher and then gliding was the way to go over 27miles, so why wouldn't it be the best way to go over even longer distances since thermals are so easy to catch and gliding so easy? Perhaps you need to revisit your own posts.Have you just woken up or something? The RE distance is around 60 miles further. If you don't understand a thread, stop posting in it.Really? Please justify your claim.As explained the benefit of gliding is negated by the RE distance. It would be better to be low on a round earth in this instance. So as Pongo says, at least the birds know its flat.I see, so you claim the reason for flying higher is simply that it's easy and efficient. So what was your point again?Thermals are easy to catch. Use them for gliding at the end of the trip. Before you say oh, well that's what they do for RET as well, glide ratio of a goose for example is only 22:1. So from 6,500 ft they only glide around 27 miles. Way short of the extra distance for a round earth trip.Typical of you to include no facts in your post.So you admit the distance is indeed longer and that you were wrong. Got it. So why do birds bother climbing in FE?
The effort of climbing is offset by the benefit of descending the same amount. Harder to climb, easier to glide.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3fTVkavMVg/SeZJ4GA509I/AAAAAAAABo0/GJJvnFecdJg/s400/penguins3whwtzr.jpg)
new issue:
why doesn't the conspiracy try to kill all the birds, since they can do anything they would surely have thought of this.
new issue:
why doesn't the conspiracy try to kill all the birds, since they can do anything they would surely have thought of this.
How about this one:
Warblers are fulfilling an urge to build nests and Peacocks are brightly colored because of sexual selection. Both a well built nest and bright colors improve chances of successful reproduction. Are there any other areas of evolution that I can clear up for you?
Yes, it's well understood that birds are required to hasten flight times in the southern hemisphere. These birds, unlike the ones in question in this thread, are a product of artifical selection. We bred them to be stronger, endure further, and fly faster; we took them right to the peak of perfection. The birds in this thread were also selected, but they were selected to preform by nature, not man. As a result, they are perfectly adapted to survive on a flat earth.
It's painfully apparent. All you have to do is open your mind to the truth and let your prejustices fly away.
They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3fTVkavMVg/SeZJ4GA509I/AAAAAAAABo0/GJJvnFecdJg/s400/penguins3whwtzr.jpg)
No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3fTVkavMVg/SeZJ4GA509I/AAAAAAAABo0/GJJvnFecdJg/s400/penguins3whwtzr.jpg)
All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.
He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.
No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3fTVkavMVg/SeZJ4GA509I/AAAAAAAABo0/GJJvnFecdJg/s400/penguins3whwtzr.jpg)
All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.
He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.
You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.
Do you want a penguin as well, or were you going to provide some content in the rebuttal?No. Penguins are for ClockTower. After he has ruined any chance of debate, with "prove it" or "justify this claim" written several times without any attempt to contribute to a subject or suggest why something might be wrong with an example or some numbers, he gets a penguin.They fly high to avoid the penguins taking pot shots at them from below.A self admitted troll derails another thread. So what is new?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3fTVkavMVg/SeZJ4GA509I/AAAAAAAABo0/GJJvnFecdJg/s400/penguins3whwtzr.jpg)
All this idiocy, like saying that birds migrate across the Pacific Ocean, and that penguins have artillery, shows how Thork has become the worst troll in a land filled with them.
He said that this forum was a good place for newbies to train on science and debating skills, and yet a newbie made an excellent argument some three pages away and he was trolled away.
You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38888.msg1079457#msg1079457
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.
So you can't prove any of your claims?
I'll say it again for emphasis: birds only save .05-.3% travel time by flying closer to ground level. The benefits that high-altitude flight likely have (less predators, fairer weather, etc) far outweigh this insignificant benefit.You cannot make an incorrect statement and say that no one can post after you to argue it. As shown in my example, some birds migrate across the Pacific. There are no predators for them across the vast ocean as brids of prey do not live out in the ocean. Here is the link again.
Now stop posting here, this topic has been disputed (and disproven) to death.
However most bird migration is in the range of 150 m (500 ft) to 600 m (2000 ft). Bird-hit aviation records from the United States show most collisions occur below 600 m (2000 ft) and almost none above 1800 m (6000 ft).
The most significant influence on the altitude at which birds fly is the weather, especially cloud cover and wind fields. Birds may fly lower when it is cloudy or, if the overcast is not too thick, they may ascend through it to reach the clear skies above. If favorable tail winds are to be found in certain altitudinal strata, birds often ascend or descend in order to take advantage of them.
with most migrations in the range of 500-2000 feet
Seabirds fly low over water but gain altitude when crossing land, and the reverse pattern is seen in landbirds
And of course this would be true in FET as well, so you've again made no point by your lame post. Are you just going to troll from now on?I'll say it again for emphasis: birds only save .05-.3% travel time by flying closer to ground level. The benefits that high-altitude flight likely have (less predators, fairer weather, etc) far outweigh this insignificant benefit.You cannot make an incorrect statement and say that no one can post after you to argue it. As shown in my example, some birds migrate across the Pacific. There are no predators for them across the vast ocean as brids of prey do not live out in the ocean. Here is the link again.
Now stop posting here, this topic has been disputed (and disproven) to death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307832/Bar-tailed-godwits-non-stop-Pacific-crossing.html
Here is a picture of their route.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Bar-tailed_Godwit_migration.jpg/300px-Bar-tailed_Godwit_migration.jpg)
Ignore the crude globe shape in wiki, but it does show they are crossing the Ocean.
As for fairer weather I have addressed this as wind is stronger at altitude, creating more severe windsheer and hence more turbulence. Birds are also strictly VFR animals. They NEVER fly through cloud. So being down low would help them to avoid cloud. 6,500 ft is not a good height to avoid cloud, you will be diverting all around it.
Birds exploit the winds to their favour so they can go the distance by burning minimal fuel. They may shift altitude to find the best wind "conveyor belt". Winds at high altitude may blow in the opposite direction from wind on the ground, and usually are blowing strongly. Larger birds rely on thermals (hot air) rising from the ground in the mornings to gain altitude by simply soaring. These birds usually migrate during the day. They may also follow strong updrafts along ridges.
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.I'd be happy to debate your point once you substantiate it. If you wish to troll by just throwing out unsupported, unrelated, or just ludicrous "facts", you'll find that we will continue to challenge you.
I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"
Have I got this right? And if so can I just go back to my request that those who say birds should fly lower go and find out for what reason the birds might fly so high?
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.
He also cannot read. I posted the links with the altitudes, speeds, distance route etc.Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.
The word you are looking for is disputed, not refuted. Also, you cannot count very high.
Oh bother, Pongo will you ever be more than an uneducated troll?Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
Have you read this thread? That point has been refuted more times than I can count.
The word you are looking for is disputed, not refuted. Also, you cannot count very high.
to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
ClockTower is an expert in words that mean wrong, false or erroneous. We throw them at him all the time. :)
Once more in English, please. Why would he then suggest a synonym?ClockTower is an expert in words that mean wrong, false or erroneous. We throw them at him all the time. :)
Pongo was making the point the were never proven false.
You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.So the trolls are now blaming other supposed trolls for trolling.
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.
There are 26 pages of this thread trig. I could pick any random point to debate, but it makes more sense to debate the posts most recently made. I do not owe you an explanation for your posts some months ago. It would be ridiculous to go pouring through long threads like this to find them and would make my post enormous reacting to every other comment made. My first post was in reaction to Dr Logic, who has not since replied. The quality is abysmal. I agree. FE has to set outs its stall - Pongo did that. The whole thread boils down to ...You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.So the trolls are now blaming other supposed trolls for trolling.
Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.
You could have ignored ClockTower and answered Dr. Logic, who demolished the OP a few pages ago, or my own posts, made some months ago, Or any of the others that you do not blame for the abysmal quality of this thread. But you like to play word games with ClockTower.
There is a real possibility in this thread of showing people how Evolution really works, but trolls like you, who profess the intention to help people learn something but then just troll, make that impossible.
It is best if you just do what you are saying and leave the thread.
I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"My side is FE. Pongo provided the solution for FE. It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude. If I argue both sides of a debate in every thread, not only will I become schizophrenic, it then becomes a monologue of my mind. Not a debate.
It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude.False. FEers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude. You have not, so the OP is not substantiated. Do try to follow better.
REers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude.
What? That's just gibberish!Sorry. Typo. Fixed.QuoteRFEers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude.
Why do RErs need to prove what pongo said is correct? He argued for FE. If he's right that makes you wrong. Do try to follow better.
And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?
I think you have missed the point. Pongo, God bless him, threw you a curve ball. He suggested the reason that birds fly high was an evolutionary response to the distances they cover and that the explanation of that was that a FE earth covered a smaller distance, RE would contradict evolutionary progress in this way, because of the extra distance incurred by flying a larger circle.And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?
You can argue the side you choose, but the only sides are either "yes, this is the evolutionary process that would work differently and this is why" or "no, there are no evolutionary processes that would clearly work differently on one model compared to the other, and this is why your example fails".
Dr. Logic, among others, has made the valid point that a 0.16% difference in distance has no effect at all in evolutionary processes, and you did not argue against that, you just started a shouting contest with ClockTower.
You can easily see that lions that are 0.16% faster or with 0.16% more endurance do not have a significant advantage that translates into them being the ones with most offspring. Darwin himself saw that stronger birds sometimes have the evolutionary advantage and sometimes not. Evolution is not about a single ability, it is about the overall adaptation to the environment in several aspects, including health, strength, aggressiveness, aesthetic qualities, adaptation to food supplies, and so much more.
Everybody who is thinking about answering Thork in this thread should remember that he just does not want to talk Evolution in a thread about Evolution. What else should you look for to spot a troll?
I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"My side is FE. Pongo provided the solution for FE. It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude. If I argue both sides of a debate in every thread, not only will I become schizophrenic, it then becomes a monologue of my mind. Not a debate.
And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.
If nothing else, at least we can all agree that the world is quite flat.
because they can't disprove Pongo.Again, how to you disprove something that hasn't been proven? Or is it FE thing that someone thinks something up and it is by default proven without any evidence and others must disprove it then? If you just read the OP then there isn't anything proven and Pongo itself can't actually elaborate more into his original speculations. He just assumes somehow that birds want to take the shortest route. And plays with that even when it is not true.
Very well said. Kudos.And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?
You can argue the side you choose, but the only sides are either "yes, this is the evolutionary process that would work differently and this is why" or "no, there are no evolutionary processes that would clearly work differently on one model compared to the other, and this is why your example fails".
Dr. Logic, among others, has made the valid point that a 0.16% difference in distance has no effect at all in evolutionary processes, and you did not argue against that, you just started a shouting contest with ClockTower.
You can easily see that lions that are 0.16% faster or with 0.16% more endurance do not have a significant advantage that translates into them being the ones with most offspring. Darwin himself saw that stronger birds sometimes have the evolutionary advantage and sometimes not. Evolution is not about a single ability, it is about the overall adaptation to the environment in several aspects, including health, strength, aggressiveness, aesthetic qualities, adaptation to food supplies, and so much more.
Everybody who is thinking about answering Thork in this thread should remember that he just does not want to talk Evolution in a thread about Evolution. What else should you look for to spot a troll?
"Evolution" is indeed a good attention grabber. If nothing else, at least we can all agree that the world is quite flat.No, we do not agree.
@ClockTower:
"Disputed" and "refuted" do not mean the same thing. Now, I could use this oppertunity to gloat and rub it in your face. However, I will take the high road and choose not to do that. Partly because I have many spelling errors and doing so would open me to a repost, but mostly because there is plently of ClockTower-hate going around as it is and eveyone else is doing a fantastic job at it. Keep up the good work FES!
Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP.Even Thork call Pongo a liar. Why I am not surprised?
ClockTower... Are you seriousAre you under the misconception that 'synonyms' and 'mean the same thing' mean the same thing?ly? You called refuted and disputed synonyms just last page. Do I need to quote it for you? It's there,I just checked.
I think you have missed the point. Pongo, God bless him, threw you a curve ball. He suggested the reason that birds fly high was an evolutionary response to the distances they cover and that the explanation of that was that a FE earth covered a smaller distance, RE would contradict evolutionary progress in this way, because of the extra distance incurred by flying a larger circle.You are not saying anything that has not been said several times before.
Now had I been arguing for RE, I would have stated that flying high is an advantage in itself and used a quick bit of maths to cement the point of view. TAS at altitude makes your groundspeed higher. Therefore they do not fly high because evolution has dictated they should because of the shape of the earth at all. It is nothing to do with earth's shape. It is to do with aerodynamics. Bam, 26 pages saved.
However most bird migration is in the range of 150 m (500 ft) to 600 m (2000 ft). Bird-hit aviation records from the United States show most collisions occur below 600 m (2000 ft) and almost none above 1800 m (6000 ft).
The most significant influence on the altitude at which birds fly is the weather, especially cloud cover and wind fields. Birds may fly lower when it is cloudy or, if the overcast is not too thick, they may ascend through it to reach the clear skies above. If favorable tail winds are to be found in certain altitudinal strata, birds often ascend or descend in order to take advantage of them.
with most migrations in the range of 500-2000 feet
Seabirds fly low over water but gain altitude when crossing land, and the reverse pattern is seen in landbirds
Birds exploit the winds to their favour so they can go the distance by burning minimal fuel. They may shift altitude to find the best wind "conveyor belt". Winds at high altitude may blow in the opposite direction from wind on the ground, and usually are blowing strongly. Larger birds rely on thermals (hot air) rising from the ground in the mornings to gain altitude by simply soaring. These birds usually migrate during the day. They may also follow strong updrafts along ridges.
Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.
And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.Before someone comes and claims that the birds somehow "want to save some distance" they must prove that birds really want that. In my opinion they don't care even if their traveling distance is some hundreds of kilometers longer.
Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP.Even Thork called Pongo a liar. Why I am not surprised?
Birds know distance formula. This in addition to use of basic sextants has allowed them to maximize the efficiency of their routes. In fact, man first gained knowledge of a^2+b^2=c^2 by eating storks. It wasn't until thousands of years later when the concept of variables was conceived that this knowledge came to be useful.And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.Before someone comes and claims that the birds somehow "want to save some distance" they must prove that birds really want that. In my opinion they don't care even if their traveling distance is some hundreds of kilometers longer.
Do you work with animals?You could say that. Although I'm now banned from the Boise Zoo, and I'm required to tell you I'm a registered sex offender.
I don't recall chiding you for taking personal stabs at me. "Seriously" was the wrong word. I don't mind trading jabs over spelling and grammar.Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP.Even Thork called Pongo a liar. Why I am not surprised?
You chide us for taking personal stabs at you while, on the very same page no less, you try and correct others spelling and grammar. That's fine with me, if you cannot argue the topics at hand, I don't mind so much that you derail to spelling. However, you must make damn sure your spelling and grammar is 100% or else you look retarted. Also, "seriously" wasn't mispelled, lrn2meme.
I do want to emphasize that even FEers consider you a liar.
I don't mean to memberate, but we can we get back on topic or start a new one for this fruitless argument?What topic? It's already pointed out that the shape of the Earth has nothing to do with the birds migration habits and birds don't take the shortest path between two points.
I don't mean to memberate, but we can we get back on topic or start a new one for this fruitless argument?What topic? It's already pointed out that the shape of the Earth has nothing to do with the birds migration habits and birds don't take the shortest path between two points.
At no point did I use the word liar. Deceiving someone does not constitute lying. You may deceive someone by just not giving them all the necessary information and misleading them.I do want to emphasize that even FEers consider you a liar.
Name two people that support FE and consider Pongo a liar.
Note that just because Thork may have called Pongo a liar, doesn't mean that he actually considers him one.
If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.
If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
And I gave also another look and there is absolutely no evidence for Pongo's OP. Birds don't fly the shortest path from point A to point B. And to that the Pongo's claim relied. That birds somehow want to shorten their trip and fly the shortest path. Fact is, they don't. Birds fly the path which has favorable climate and winds for them and that may take even hundreds of kilometers more flying than the shortest path. So, nothing to do with the shape of the earth.If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
I took your advice and gave it another look. If you look through again you will find that the support for Pongo's original statement goes far beyond just words. Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement and it remains correct.
You've lost all credibility with this post. Amazing.If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
I took your advice and gave it another look. If you look through again you will find that the support for Pongo's original statement goes far beyond just words. Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement and it remains correct.
Not all rulings are popular. Making the correct read given the evidence is more important. You may win some debates yourself if you keeping reading and learning from the site content.You've lost all credibility with this post. Amazing.If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
I took your advice and gave it another look. If you look through again you will find that the support for Pongo's original statement goes far beyond just words. Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement and it remains correct.
You said that you gave it another look and there was support and Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement. I suppose that you limit this support and burden of proof only with this thread and with peoples speculations. Not any actual observation data or any research. I am correct? Because if you took another look then I would like to see some links to these messages where the burden of proof is met(I actually skipped through these pages and read quickly through only the Pongo's messages and found not one where he "met this burden of proof" or where he elaborated more his claims). And links to some support messages so that I can see what you consider "the support" to be?Not all rulings are popular. Making the correct read given the evidence is more important. You may win some debates yourself if you keeping reading and learning from the site content.You've lost all credibility with this post. Amazing.If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
I took your advice and gave it another look. If you look through again you will find that the support for Pongo's original statement goes far beyond just words. Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement and it remains correct.
You said that you gave it another look and there was support and Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement. I suppose that you limit this support and burden of proof only with this thread and with peoples speculations. Not any actual observation data or any research. I am correct? Because if you took another look then I would like to see some links to these messages where the burden of proof is met(I actually skipped through these pages and read quickly through only the Pongo's messages and found not one where he "met this burden of proof" or where he elaborated more his claims). And links to some support messages so that I can see what you consider "the support" to be?Not all rulings are popular. Making the correct read given the evidence is more important. You may win some debates yourself if you keeping reading and learning from the site content.You've lost all credibility with this post. Amazing.If the thread is about completed then it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has been shown to be true. Putting all bias aside and reading through all 28 pages, this is determined to be the case. Clearly the OP content has been shown to be well supported.I wonder how. Pongo's original statement hasn't got any support with real evidence only by FE'ers who pat in the back and support verbally like "Yes, it's like that", "Yes, it's proven" and nothing more. Yes, you are right about the support part but wrong about being true part. Latter one hasn't got any supportive evidence. So, it is important to understand that Pongo's original statement has failed totally.
I took your advice and gave it another look. If you look through again you will find that the support for Pongo's original statement goes far beyond just words. Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement and it remains correct.
Sorry, if you only say that then I am supposed to conclude that you didn't look through topic again and just lied about it. I looked itself quickly through and I can't decide which ones you count as supportive because I can't find any data or researches. And because of that I asked from you to show messages that you count as supportive. But as I see you can't do that.You said that you gave it another look and there was support and Pongo has met the burden of proof for his statement. I suppose that you limit this support and burden of proof only with this thread and with peoples speculations. Not any actual observation data or any research. I am correct? Because if you took another look then I would like to see some links to these messages where the burden of proof is met(I actually skipped through these pages and read quickly through only the Pongo's messages and found not one where he "met this burden of proof" or where he elaborated more his claims). And links to some support messages so that I can see what you consider "the support" to be?
Yes it is there in the supporting statements. I am not going to link each one for you but do look through again at your own pace.
Note carefully the different heights in which birds migrate. If the earth were round, all birds would fly their great distances as close to the surface as possible as to shorten their journey. If you were flying on a sphere, the shortest line from point A to point B would be as close to the surface as possible. However, as you can see, birds have again proven the shape of the earth to be flat in their evolutionary endeavor to conserve energy. They do not have to worry about altitudes on a flat earth. The trip will be just as short at any altitude (minus the rises and falls to and from their flight height).
Awesome. Then let the thread die.
If we are creative and let all other interesting themes to fork out from original idea then this thread can go on forever.
Like everything here, it has decomposed into babble about small details, aspects and semantics, as opposed to actually talking about whether the theory is fundamentally sound or not. Like talking about the burden of truth, for instance, instead of that, try this:If we are creative and let all other interesting themes to fork out from original idea then this thread can go on forever.
One could say that the thread has evolved. I wouldn't, but one could say that.
I didn't really understand that rant, but I thoughly enjoyed it.thoughly? I see that you evolve your dictionary also.
I didn't really understand that rant, but I thoughly enjoyed it.thoughly? I see that you evolve your dictionary also.
well, if the earth is round, doesnt it mean its easier to go up and down anyways? becuase then you go straight to the warmer areas during migration. regardless on wheater this is fe or re, it is the easiest path to go to warmer climates
This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
Your first two points have nothing to do with BiJane's post. However, you're right at both ends of your post.This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.
I didn't realize that predators don't actually go after the easy prey, but in reality go for the toughest.
I have been thinking this wrong the whole time haven't I?
Your first two points have nothing to do with BiJane's post. However, you're right at both ends of your post.This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.
I didn't realize that predators don't actually go after the easy prey, but in reality go for the toughest.
I have been thinking this wrong the whole time haven't I?
Your failure to understand BiJane's excellent point has everything to do with you. BiJane, you surely did a great job reminding us of the basics of evolution. Thanks.Your first two points have nothing to do with BiJane's post. However, you're right at both ends of your post.This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.
I didn't realize that predators don't actually go after the easy prey, but in reality go for the toughest.
I have been thinking this wrong the whole time haven't I?
Your failure to comprehend simple sentences has nothing to do with me.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.You are absolutely right. The bird which takes the first path has better chances for survival. Which one of the Arctic terns would survive its migration. The one who takes the straight(shortest) path or the one who doesn't?
Two birds with one stone. Awesome job, zork!My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.You are absolutely right. The bird which takes the first path has better chances for survival. Which one of the Arctic terns would survive its migration. The one who takes the straight(shortest) path or the one who doesn't?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451908.stm
"They make a detour of several thousand km but once we start comparing the route to the prevailing wind system, it makes perfect sense - moving in a counter-clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.
"It's just more energy-efficient for them to do that even though they are travelling several thousand more km than if they flew in a straight line."
This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.
I didn't realize that predators don't actually go after the easy prey, but in reality go for the toughest.
I have been thinking this wrong the whole time haven't I?
Two birds with one stone. Awesome job, zork!My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.You are absolutely right. The bird which takes the first path has better chances for survival. Which one of the Arctic terns would survive its migration. The one who takes the straight(shortest) path or the one who doesn't?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451908.stm
1) Debunking the lame understanding of EG
2) Providing evidence of the Coriolis Effect:Quote"They make a detour of several thousand km but once we start comparing the route to the prevailing wind system, it makes perfect sense - moving in a counter-clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.
"It's just more energy-efficient for them to do that even though they are travelling several thousand more km than if they flew in a straight line."
Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
But survival doesn't mean that the path the birds take can't be easier to fly. As the easier way assures the more chances for survival then it's just logical that birds fly that way.
Survival won't entail making every situation as easy as possible. For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy. And in the same time the easiest ways sometimes are better from the standpoint of the survival. Like the migration paths. Is it really so hard to understand?Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
But survival doesn't mean that the path the birds take can't be easier to fly. As the easier way assures the more chances for survival then it's just logical that birds fly that way.
If survival entails making every situation as easy as possible, then evolution is evidently about making things easier.
Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
But survival doesn't mean that the path the birds take can't be easier to fly. As the easier way assures the more chances for survival then it's just logical that birds fly that way.
If survival entails making every situation as easy as possible, then evolution is evidently about making things easier.
This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
My mistake. I didn't realize that a bird that goes from point A to B to C to D to E to F to G to H to I to J to K to L has a better chance of survival than one that figured out to go directly from point A to L instead.
I didn't realize that predators don't actually go after the easy prey, but in reality go for the toughest.
I have been thinking this wrong the whole time haven't I?
For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.
Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
But survival doesn't mean that the path the birds take can't be easier to fly. As the easier way assures the more chances for survival then it's just logical that birds fly that way.
If survival entails making every situation as easy as possible, then evolution is evidently about making things easier.
There are two paths in front of you: a long path, with walls, or a shorter, with fields either side and wild animals roaming. Which will allow you the best chance to survive?
For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.
This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.Epic failure. You just proved BiJane wrong. The birds fly that way because it is the most energy efficient, and therefore easiest way to do it. Thank you for proving me right Clocktower and zork. You guys are pals.Where did you got that I proved BiJane wrong? She just stated that - evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
But survival doesn't mean that the path the birds take can't be easier to fly. As the easier way assures the more chances for survival then it's just logical that birds fly that way.
If survival entails making every situation as easy as possible, then evolution is evidently about making things easier.
There are two paths in front of you: a long path, with walls, or a shorter, with fields either side and wild animals roaming. Which will allow you the best chance to survive?
There are too many variables you haven't listed. How long is the long path? How short is the short path? What sort of wild animals are they? What supplies do I have for my travels? Do I have to be there in a certain amount of time?
For all I know the long path could be a lightyear long and the the short path could be only 100 yards and the wild animals are rabbits. I could have no supplies, in which case the shorter and easier path would be best for my survival.
Are you capable of individual thought?
Okay, fine, details: short path. Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers. You have no supplies, but on both roots it's possible to stop and pick up food and water.
Are you capable of individual thought?
Okay, fine, details: short path. Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers. You have no supplies, but on both roots it's possible to stop and pick up food and water.
Well gosh, that is easy. Piranhas only bite creatures that scare them, and even then there are no recorded deaths caused by piranha. So I'll just swim in slow, deliberate movements so that I glide through the water and not make a ruckus. When I get out of the water I'll strip all of my clothes off, and then smother some cherries from a nearby bush on myself so it looks as though I too, am a savage cannibal. I shall then proceed to run though the land screaming strings of sounds and syllables that don't even make sense, again, to blend in. I'll make it faster on the short path than on the longer path. Upon reaching my destination, this act of extreme survival prowess will undoubtedly impress all of the fertile women at the village I am heading towards. This will allow me to more easily spread my loin, and wage war upon the other kingdoms.
Or I could just reply that since the longer path is only 25-50% longer, it is far easier to take that path than deal with the wildlife/natives.
You still lose. :)
This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
I also addressed how the long path would be easier in that post. So you lose. Sorry! 8)
This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.
This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
And sometimes of course it isn't.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.
This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
The survival (propagation) of the species instinct is sometimes stronger than the survival of the individual instinct.
I also addressed how the long path would be easier in that post. So you lose. Sorry! 8)This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
And sometimes of course it isn't.If you only bothered to read it then you would have seen that you just failed with your argument.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071114-eating-young.html
I also addressed how the long path would be easier in that post. So you lose. Sorry! 8)This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
And I proved your statement wrong. Just because you make the text bigger doesn't make it correct.
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
I also addressed how the long path would be easier in that post. So you lose. Sorry! 8)This has probably been said a lot before, but oh well: evolution isn't for ease, it's for survival.
And I proved your statement wrong. Just because you make the text bigger doesn't make it correct.
You addressed how it would be easier, I said it wasn't for ease. In what book am I the one who was proven wrong? Just because you think it's easier to go through incredibly risking water and take a huge risk in disguise doesn't mean you have a better chance at survival than a person who takes the safe route.
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
If you bothered to read it you would see animals eating their young. That is survival before procreation. Don't just look at the Avatar, decide you are in opposition with that person and make a judgement on that. Look at the information being presented.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.And sometimes of course it isn't.If you only bothered to read it then you would have seen that you just failed with your argument.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071114-eating-young.html
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.For example getting the female companion isn't usually easy.This is non sequitur. There is a you personally surviving you and you trying to find a mate are two different things.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
How does the effect of spaying and neutering animals have any relevance to if the earth is flat or not?
Berny
Believes that pets should be spayed/neutered.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
That is if you ever make it. Dreaming is nice but the one who took the safest path is already there and got the best woman. And if you ever get to the destination, ragged tired and smeared with all kind of things then you don't have very much chances to impress anyone.Are you capable of individual thought?
Okay, fine, details: short path. Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers. You have no supplies, but on both roots it's possible to stop and pick up food and water.
Well gosh, that is easy. Piranhas only bite creatures that scare them, and even then there are no recorded deaths caused by piranha. So I'll just swim in slow, deliberate movements so that I glide through the water and not make a ruckus. When I get out of the water I'll strip all of my clothes off, and then smother some cherries from a nearby bush on myself so it looks as though I too, am a savage cannibal. I shall then proceed to run though the land screaming strings of sounds and syllables that don't even make sense, again, to blend in. I'll make it faster on the short path than on the longer path. Upon reaching my destination, this act of extreme survival prowess will undoubtedly impress all of the fertile women at the village I am heading towards. This will allow me to more easily spread my loin, and wage war upon the other kingdoms.
In that case you just failed to make your point. What was it? I thought that you presented this link as example for animals who don't care about survival.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.If you bothered to read it you would see animals eating their young. That is survival before procreation. Don't just look at the Avatar, decide you are in opposition with that person and make a judgement on that. Look at the information being presented.And sometimes of course it isn't.If you only bothered to read it then you would have seen that you just failed with your argument.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071114-eating-young.html
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
That is if you ever make it. Dreaming is nice but the one who took the safest path is already there and got the best woman. And if you ever get to the destination, ragged tired and smeared with all kind of things then you don't have very much chances to impress anyone.Are you capable of individual thought?
Okay, fine, details: short path. Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers. You have no supplies, but on both roots it's possible to stop and pick up food and water.
Well gosh, that is easy. Piranhas only bite creatures that scare them, and even then there are no recorded deaths caused by piranha. So I'll just swim in slow, deliberate movements so that I glide through the water and not make a ruckus. When I get out of the water I'll strip all of my clothes off, and then smother some cherries from a nearby bush on myself so it looks as though I too, am a savage cannibal. I shall then proceed to run though the land screaming strings of sounds and syllables that don't even make sense, again, to blend in. I'll make it faster on the short path than on the longer path. Upon reaching my destination, this act of extreme survival prowess will undoubtedly impress all of the fertile women at the village I am heading towards. This will allow me to more easily spread my loin, and wage war upon the other kingdoms.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.
Good luck.
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.
Good luck.
I challenge whether you claim is true, not whether it's valid. Your claim, indeed no claim, cannot stand without evidence or logic.Wrong. You fail at reasoning.What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.
Good luck.
Incorrect. It is a basic truth in logic that every claim without a counter example is valid. My reasoning is just fine.
I challenge whether you claim is true, not whether it's valid. Your claim, indeed no claim, cannot stand without evidence or logic.Wrong. You fail at reasoning.What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me. :-*
Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.
Good luck.
Incorrect. It is a basic truth in logic that every claim without a counter example is valid. My reasoning is just fine.
Saying something is a fact does not make it so.
Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.
Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.
Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.I think there is a post in another forum that pretty much proves that evolution does not occur - so how would you reword your answer as evolution has not been proven.
englishgentleman, are you saying evolution is about ease or suvival? im getting confused...
englishgentleman, are you saying evolution is about ease or suvival? im getting confused...
BiJane said that evolution is not about ease, but about survival.
I am stating that ease=survival.
Species do not evolve to help others, the evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.You are so wrong that there is no point in arguing with you anymore.
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case. So, you are either dead or arrive later and ragged and tired and unable to get any women. That's all.
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
When did I ever suggest this?
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?And I argued that in this situation it didn't - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?And I argued that in this situation it didn't - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
Take account that the terrain is rougher, harder to run. Stripping off and swimming very carefully, managing cannibals, which isn't so easy as you describe and no one said that there is only one body of water or one cannibal camp. You lose your 8 minutes like nothing.I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?And I argued that in this situation it didn't - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
Running an extra mile and a half would take the average person probably 8 minutes. Stripping your clothing off and swimming does not take this much time.
Take account that the terrain is rougher, harder to run. Stripping off and swimming very carefully, managing cannibals, which isn't so easy as you describe and no one said that there is only one body of water or one cannibal camp. You lose your 8 minutes like nothing.I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?And I argued that in this situation it didn't - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
Running an extra mile and a half would take the average person probably 8 minutes. Stripping your clothing off and swimming does not take this much time.
The distance is only two miles. If there are separate bodies of water, and multiple cannibal camp, the distances are not going to be very far in each part.
It is also non-sequiter to try and compare a distance between running on land and having to swim. The distance from the beginning to end for the "short" path could only be a meter and the long path 10 meters, but you have to clime a 2000 meter cliff in order to go the short route. Because of this, the short path actually isn't shorter the shorter path because in reality it requires you to cover more terrain.
So in reality the "shorter" path as BiJane described it would not actually be shorter.
The distance is only two miles. If there are separate bodies of water, and multiple cannibal camp, the distances are not going to be very far in each part.
It is also non-sequiter to try and compare a distance between running on land and having to swim. The distance from the beginning to end for the "short" path could only be a meter and the long path 10 meters, but you have to clime a 2000 meter cliff in order to go the short route. Because of this, the short path actually isn't shorter the shorter path because in reality it requires you to cover more terrain.
So in reality the "shorter" path as BiJane described it would not actually be shorter.
It's not only two mile, it's two miles which you have to survive. And don't bring absurd situations in play where there were none described in starting message. But for the shorter path there was clear description - Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. And longer - The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers.
If both are in vicinity of each other then there is no way that the longer has 2000m rock on its way. And stop bringing constantly in some new variables. Fact is that the longer path assures 100% surviving while the shorter path gives you only some probability and there is no way that you get to the destination faster. You may if you are in very good shape and lucky but not surely.
how does movment prove flat earth? if the op is about the shortest distance, tell me how on a round earth, straight from point a to point b in climate zones is not the easiest
im getting confused...
how does movment prove flat earth? if the op is about the shortest distance, tell me how on a round earth, straight from point a to point b in climate zones is not the easiest
im getting confused...
The good news is that it doesn't. But I'll try to explain the point is attempting to make:
Animals throughout history have adapted to become as efficient as possible. For example, birds have developed superious senses of direction (among other things) to aid them in their long migrations. The idea of Natural Selection basically says that organisms that cannot adapt will die out.
Pongo argues that, if the Earth is indeed round, birds are not being as efficient as possible because they fly so high in the sky when they migrate (ergo, they technically travel a longer distance than if they flew closer to the ground). However, if the Earth was flat, high-altitude migrations would be perfectly efficient. Pongo then argues that, if the Earth truly was round, Natural Selection would kill of the birds. Since birds are clearly still around, he incorrectly asserts that the Earth must be flat.
He's completely incorrect for the following reasons:
- Birds only fly .01-.1% farther by flying at higher altitudes
- Birds may very well fly at higher altitudes for reasons we don't know (e.g. riding air currents, staying in fairer weather, depending on the areas they fly over, or to avoid predators)
- The Earth is round.
Does that help?
It is natural selection acting upon genetic diversity that determines if adaptability is successful or not for survival. On a flat earth, birds look like they do.I see a dead bird. So, that i how the flat earth birds look.
On a round earth, birds would probably have developed unknown genetic characteristics and adapted for survival.So, the round earth birds are alive and surviving species. Nice.
This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
and most of your "evidence" have not been proven by science. Nuff said
I wonder if you flat earthers understand what is going on in this world. And if so, where's the proof.
Horribly, horribly wrong. The burden lies with the claimant.This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
and most of your "evidence" have not been proven by science. Nuff said
I wonder if you flat earthers understand what is going on in this world. And if so, where's the proof.
Don't think you're special for pointing out that FET is unproven, undocumented, and generally very inaccurate. But you're here at this site, so play FE'ers game. And don't bother bringing up Burden of Proof, because since this is a place where FET is the dominant theory, the BOP is technically on you.
This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
and most of your "evidence" have not been proven by science. Nuff said
I wonder if you flat earthers understand what is going on in this world. And if so, where's the proof.
Don't think you're special for pointing out that FET is unproven, undocumented, and generally very inaccurate. But you're here at this site, so play FE'ers game. And don't bother bringing up Burden of Proof, because since this is a place where FET is the dominant theory, the BOP is technically on you.
Horribly, horribly wrong. The burden lies with the claimant.This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
and most of your "evidence" have not been proven by science. Nuff said
I wonder if you flat earthers understand what is going on in this world. And if so, where's the proof.
Don't think you're special for pointing out that FET is unproven, undocumented, and generally very inaccurate. But you're here at this site, so play FE'ers game. And don't bother bringing up Burden of Proof, because since this is a place where FET is the dominant theory, the BOP is technically on you.
Where in the world is this place where the Earth is predominantly flat?Horribly, horribly wrong. The burden lies with the claimant.This is so funny, for a bunch of folks who believe in evolution fairly well, you guys can't seem to grasp the burden of evidence that's on you if you support a flat earth.
We've provided evidence to support a flat earth... Did you just post that for the hell of it or do you really not understand what's going on in this thread?
and most of your "evidence" have not been proven by science. Nuff said
I wonder if you flat earthers understand what is going on in this world. And if so, where's the proof.
Don't think you're special for pointing out that FET is unproven, undocumented, and generally very inaccurate. But you're here at this site, so play FE'ers game. And don't bother bringing up Burden of Proof, because since this is a place where FET is the dominant theory, the BOP is technically on you.
Exactly. As long as TFES is paying the server bills, we're the one's claiming the Earth is round in a place where the Earth is predominantly flat.
How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
I could ask the same of you, but I won't. I consider a stalemate an RE victory since we already have the high ground. Another RE victory!Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
And we also have no responsibility to change your mind or provide proof to you. Since this stalemate means neither of us have to prove anything to the other, may I ask why you are on theflatearthsociety?
Clocktower has given up.
ANOTHER VICTORY FORFLATROUND EARTH!!!
Clocktower has given up.Justify your outlandish claim.
Berny
Because I said so
I could ask the same of you, but I won't. I consider a stalemate an RE victory since we already have the high ground. Another RE victory!Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
And we also have no responsibility to change your mind or provide proof to you. Since this stalemate means neither of us have to prove anything to the other, may I ask why you are on theflatearthsociety?
Changing your words, again? Fine so our victory is only "in the conversation".I could ask the same of you, but I won't. I consider a stalemate an RE victory since we already have the high ground. Another RE victory!Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
And we also have no responsibility to change your mind or provide proof to you. Since this stalemate means neither of us have to prove anything to the other, may I ask why you are on theflatearthsociety?
I meant a stalemate in the conversation, not in the debate.
Please do keep up.
I am on the flat earth society to talk about how flat the earth is. It is rather flat.
In the process I made friends and we talk here as well. You on the other hand seem to want to prove the earth is round. Feel free to provide evidence and do so.
Changing your words, again? Fine so our victory is only "in the conversation".I could ask the same of you, but I won't. I consider a stalemate an RE victory since we already have the high ground. Another RE victory!Nope. I have no responsibility to prove your beliefs wrong, even when they are.How is the world is this a place where the Earth is predominantly flat?
???
His point is, he came here, then demanded we prove to him something. That is rather ridiculous, he should either show proof against our belief, or not argue at all.
And we also have no responsibility to change your mind or provide proof to you. Since this stalemate means neither of us have to prove anything to the other, may I ask why you are on theflatearthsociety?
I meant a stalemate in the conversation, not in the debate.
Please do keep up.
I am on the flat earth society to talk about how flat the earth is. It is rather flat.
In the process I made friends and we talk here as well. You on the other hand seem to want to prove the earth is round. Feel free to provide evidence and do so.
Really, no words changed between your first claim and your second? I do love it when all you have left is flaming. I guess you're all out of useful contributions to the topic. Noted.
I didn't change my words, I clarified them because you couldn't keep up.
And stalemates always go to those with a disadvantage. Your mental handicap definitely qualifies.