How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Quote from: Raist on June 13, 2010, 01:18:33 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 11:28:59 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 12, 2010, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 13, 2010, 10:09:23 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 13, 2010, 01:18:33 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 11:28:59 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 12, 2010, 07:45:23 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 10:33:10 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 12, 2010, 10:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 12, 2010, 08:40:54 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Raist on June 14, 2010, 08:41:07 PM

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.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 14, 2010, 10:44:23 PM

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.

Quote from: John Davis on June 15, 2010, 12:12:05 AM

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.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 09:13:24 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 14, 2010, 08:41:07 PM

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.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 09:30:32 AM

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.

Quote from: John Davis on June 14, 2010, 11:52:02 PM

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.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 09:30:32 AM

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.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 15, 2010, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 14, 2010, 09:30:32 AM

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.