Psychologic

Member Profile

A little about me...
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." -Albert Einstein

Member Since: August 30, 2008
Last Power Points used: April 9, 2009
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to Psychologic

xxovercastxx says...

Substituting "of" for "have" has become so common online in the past, say, 2 years, that I'm starting to think the latter is wrong when I see it.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
That's embarrassing. I've lived in the southern US all my life and tend to slip back into the local grammar when I'm tired. ><

Valid correction. =)

:
>>
^Psychologic:

It wasn't as cool as using a tree limb, but it must of have looked nearly as odd driving down the road.

zombieater says...

Ah..."Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" -Euripides. It has been my personal experience that those who do not believe in evolution are not so much resistant to the idea as they are ignorant of it, as you said. You can explain to him that evolution is the product of math, and that's it. As one allele is favored in the environment, it increases in frequency. In fact, you could also explain that evolution may also occur through something as simple (and unarguable) as migration. If more individuals with blond hair enter a population, the population evolves because the frequency of the blond allele increases.

In regards to the age of the earth, you could discuss some geological facts that are in obvious support of an ancient earth:
1) Fossils (Previous types of organisms have existed. Extinction has occurred. We know the rate of extinction and the rate that speciation occurs - these all indicate an earth that is billions of years old)
2) Vestigial structures (Previous useful structures can lose their function through time - lots of it)
3) Modern Gemonics (The more closely related two organisms are the more similar their DNA is, the more genes they have in common and therefore the more morphologically similar they are. We know the rate of mutation, which means we know the rate of the formation of alleles in a population. For humans, the rate of mutation is about 0.0000001 mutations per base pair per generation (very slow - and this is for all mutations, not just for positive ones). The formation of new species usually takes millions of years due to this slow rate coupled with natural selection.
4) Biogeography (A single species separated by the movement of continents evolves at the same discussed rate. We know how fast continents move (theory of plate tectonics: 2 - 10 cm/year). We know many organisms were separated by continental drift (Many separate (but very similar-looking) species are found in currently separate geographical areas that were once together - primates in Africa / South America, for example or the flightless birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite - for marsupials: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

I hope this helps!

Marc

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, you seem to know your way around science so I have a question for you (asking several people actually):

I have a friend who is fairly intelligent and open-minded, but is also a young-earth creationist. While there is quite a bit of evidence showing the planet to be much older than 7000 years, I'm trying to find something that is fairly obvious and can't be dismissed as easily as, say, radiometric dating.

Needless to say, he doesn't "believe" in evolution, but I think many of his positions are the product of misinformation. I wouldn't believe in what he thinks evolution is either, but for now I just want a clear way of showing a skeptic that the earth is much older than the christian bible seems to indicate.

Any insight?

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 2 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


BoneRemake says...

I have no clue wtf I was talking about/thinking. The only thing I do know for a flat fact is that I have peanut butter sandwiched between two pieces of white bread with slats of banana between.

BoneRemake says...

I respect your logic, but do not support it. If a person understands neutral to be something so narrow fielded as a disconnect from the propulsory circuit then nothing is gained. Neutral is nothing more then an equilibrium of push and pull, taught and loose.

Neutral SHOULD be understood when it comes to engines as neither in or out produces effect.

neutral should not be pigeon holed to conform to one standard, it is a variable word .

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos