Evolution - a very bad joke...

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I see. You're just misunderstanding Murphy's Law. No, Murphy's Law doesn't say that given infinite time anything that can go
wrong will. It says for any given event, anything that can go wrong will. As in, at a wedding, anything that can go wrong, will, at that particular wedding.
This isn't just challenging conventional thought. It's like you're saying "grass is usually purple". It's simply not true. But now that I figured out the
problem, it's easily fixable. Murphy's Law states that anything that can go wrong at a given event, will. That claim is neither true nor scientific.

You just illustrated the effect of Murphy's Law.
It is possible to mis-state a physical law.
Murphy says that if this can happen, it will.
You just mis-stated Murphy's Law.
Mr Murphy is not vindicated.....well, not really.....but he's supported by your failure to state the law correctly.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What can go wrong? Anything? What specifically about each situation can go wrong?
Where is the predictability? Anything is a very general word.
The so called Law is to general, there is no specificity.

Although I must say it holds up better than Creationism.

 

[Magic Man]

You just illustrated the effect of Murphy's Law.
It is possible to mis-state a physical law.
Murphy says that if this can happen, it will.
You just mis-stated Murphy's Law.
Mr Murphy is not vindicated.....well, not really.....but he's supported by your failure to state the law correctly.

So, instead of admitting you were wrong, this is what I get? Sorry, but Murphy's Law states that at a given event, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. You have three options. One is to admit you were wrong, and move on. The second is to not admit you were wrong and move on. The third is to continue pretending you weren't wrong and not move on. I'm guessing you'll choose option 3.

 

[Revoltingest]

What can go wrong? Anything? What specifically about each situation can go wrong?
Where is the predictability? Anything is a very general word.
The so called Law is to general, there is no specificity.

Murphy's Law does seem fuzzy in its application. Until this thread, I never thought to treat it as a physical law which ranked up there
with Ohm's, Hooke's, Revoltingest's, or Watt's. But it suddenly seemed so compelling.....& when no good counter-arguments were
forthcoming, I naturally had to break this new ground. I have a wicked idea. Let's convince Meow Mix to play devil's advocate on behalf
of Murphy's Law, & construct the best argument that it truly is a legitimate scientific physical law. Certainly, she is more qualified
than I. Where might this lead? I smell a Nobel Prize in physics! (Or at least it could be in fiction....just so long as it's not "peace".
What a disgrace that award would be! Although......the cash award would mitigate the shame.)

Although I must say it holds up better than Creationism.

What doesn't?

 

[Meow Mix]

Murphy's Law does seem fuzzy in its application. Until this thread, I never thought to treat it as a physical law which ranked up there
with Ohm's, Hooke's, Revoltingest's, or Watt's. But it suddenly seemed so compelling.....& when no good counter-arguments were
forthcoming, I naturally had to break this new ground. I have a wicked idea. Let's convince Meow Mix to play devil's advocate on behalf
of Murphy's Law, & construct the best argument that it truly is a legitimate scientific physical law. Certainly, she is more qualified
than I. Where might this lead? I smell a Nobel Prize in physics! (Or at least it could be in fiction....just so long as it's not "peace".
What a disgrace that award would be! Although......the cash award would mitigate the shame.)

What doesn't?

lol. I'll have to think on it for a bit.

 

[Revoltingest]

lol. I'll have to think on it for a bit.

I presume you would. Just don't spend Nobel's money yet.

 

[Magic Man]

Murphy's Law does seem fuzzy in its application. Until this thread, I never thought to treat it as a physical law which ranked up there
with Ohm's, Hooke's, Revoltingest's, or Watt's. But it suddenly seemed so compelling.....& when no good counter-arguments were
forthcoming, I naturally had to break this new ground. I have a wicked idea. Let's convince Meow Mix to play devil's advocate on behalf
of Murphy's Law, & construct the best argument that it truly is a legitimate scientific physical law. Certainly, she is more qualified
than I. Where might this lead? I smell a Nobel Prize in physics! (Or at least it could be in fiction....just so long as it's not "peace".
What a disgrace that award would be! Although......the cash award would mitigate the shame.)

What doesn't?

Well, you did it subtlely, but at least you did it. I'm glad you could admit your mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you did it subtlely, but at least you did it. I'm glad you could admit your mistake.

I admit no mistake.
I think I'm on to something.
Still no clue which weighs more?

 

[Magic Man]

I admit no mistake.

Yes, you did. As I said, you did it subtlely, but you did it nonetheless. Don't try to hide from my congratulations now. You did a good thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, you did. As I said, you did it subtlely, but you did it nonetheless. Don't try to hide from my congratulations now. You did a good thing.

I don't deserve your praise. I smell a Nobel....or at lease, Ig Nobel award in our future.
No one has yet clearly refuted my contention that Murphy's Law is a scientific law.
(Perhaps it could end up being merely a corollary, but we shall see.)
Btw, there must be good reason it's not called "Murphy's theory" or "Murphy's pretty good rule of thumb".

http://improbable.com/ig/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIKnFZhCr2k

 

[fantome profane]

Oh, words & opinions aplenty.
Beginning to wonder how many
posts it will take
before he will make
an argument worthy...or can't he?

For a law there are some restrictions
For one it must make predictions
clear and precise
short sweet and nice
Despite your rhyming predilections.

 

[Revoltingest]

For a law there are some restrictions
For one it must make predictions
clear and precise
short sweet and nice
Despite your rhyming predilections.

Kudos!

 

[Autodidact]

I realize this thread was exceptionally stupid from the get-go, but you guys really need to start a thread to argue about Murphy's law. After all, someone might click on the thread thinking it was actually about whether Evolution is a joke.

 

[Revoltingest]

I realize this thread was exceptionally stupid from the get-go, but you guys really need to start a thread to argue about Murphy's law. After all, someone might click on the thread thinking it was actually about whether Evolution is a joke.

Appropriate.....I bet that's what Meow Gal will do when she's ready for phase 2.

 

[Magic Man]

No one has yet clearly refuted my contention that Murphy's Law is a scientific law.

Yes, we have. Just because you choose to ignore what you don't like doesn't mean it's not there. It's not a scientific law because it doesn't conform to the standards of science. It's very simple. If you said "grass is purple", the refutation would be "no, it's green". You say this is a scientific law. The response is "no, it's not scientific". We've even gone into more detail than that. It's been explained more than sufficiently for someone who's not just being willfully ignorant or just trying to continue an argument.

(Perhaps it could end up being merely a corollary, but we shall see.)
Btw, there must be good reason it's not called "Murphy's theory" or "Murphy's pretty good rule of thumb".

Improbable Research
[youtube]oIKnFZhCr2k[/youtube]
YouTube - 20th First Annual Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony

Yeah, it's because it sounds funny. It's not because it's an actual law or scientific.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, we have. Just because you choose to ignore what you don't like doesn't mean it's not there. It's not a scientific law because it doesn't conform to the standards of science. It's very simple. If you said "grass is purple", the refutation would be "no, it's green". You say this is a scientific law. The response is "no, it's not scientific". We've even gone into more detail than that. It's been explained more than sufficiently for someone who's not just being willfully ignorant or just trying to continue an argument.
Yeah, it's because it sounds funny. It's not because it's an actual law or scientific.

To just repeat your own opinions & poor analogies is not to make a cogent argument.

Back to the gold, feathers & bacon....there is no trick. There are standard definitions, & there is a single right answer for each question
But by sowing seeds of doubt, I discovered who has the courage to answer with no fear of being wrong. To not answer, is to be so obsessed
with being right, that fear prevents venturing an answer. Those questions show what stuff posters are made of. To be willing to be wrong,
is to allow striving for novel understandings & perhaps breaking new ground.
Have I taunted you into answering yet? No....well here's a hint: The answers are all different.

 

[Magic Man]

To just repeat your own opinions & poor analogies is not to make a cogent argument.

You're right. That's why I didn't do that. I presented a cogent argument with good analogies. I'm sorry you're unable to grasp this concept.

Back to the gold, feathers & bacon....there is no trick. There are standard definitions, & there is a single right answer for each question
But by sowing seeds of doubt, I discovered who has the courage to answer with no fear of being wrong. To not answer, is to be so obsessed
with being right, that fear prevents venturing an answer. Those questions show what stuff posters are made of. To be willing to be wrong,
is to allow striving for novel understandings & perhaps breaking new ground.
Have I taunted you into answering yet? No....well here's a hint: The answers are all different.

All you have to do is explain the point of the questions. It's not hard. This isn't about courage, as I already explained. It's about the fact that they're obvious, silly questions that have nothing to do with anything. So, all that's left is for you to explain the point of this nonsense. I guess you're just not brave enough to do that, though.

 

[evolved yet?]

Ask an evolutionist what will be the next thing to evolve?
- There is no single "next thing".
- It would be an interesting field of study to look at ongoing environmental changes & try to model evolutionary responses. I smell a PhD thesis topic in that.
Ask an evolutionist to explain Big breasted humans.
- Such women are popular with menfolk.
Ask an evolutionist at what point did we become able to diviate from evolution as in (Dogs, Cats, and Horse's) for example.
- 62,367 years, 4 months, & 2 days ago.
And why don't other animals have the same ablilty. Did apes selectivily breed anything.
- Apes don't use domesticated critters, so they had no interest in animal husbandry.
Ask an evolutionist about cross species breeding. It doesn't count and only happens rarely in nature and the results are mostly sterile anyway.
- Beneficial mutations are a small percentage of all mutations. That's why a long time frame is necessary for evolution to work.
- That's why it's quite rational for young earth types to prefer magical explanations.
Ask an evolutionist if they all agree why the (pick you thing) evolved do they all agree it happened the same way.
- They all agree? I sure see a whole lotta arguing & controversy.
Its not a joke but an overly exaggerated story about how things came to be.
- Where is the exaggeration?

He was joking. Well I hope so.

 

[Revoltingest]

All you have to do is explain the point of the questions. It's not hard. This isn't about courage, as I already explained. It's about the fact that they're obvious, silly questions that have nothing to do with anything. So, all that's left is for you to explain the point of this nonsense. I guess you're just not brave enough to do that, though.

All is so clear to you, & you allude to knowing the singular correct answer, yet you must avoid stating that which you say is so obvious.
That is a point of my questions.

Pseudo-psych analysis time:
You have the nagging seed of doubt that my questions aren't as simple as they appear, or that you might inadvertently
illustrate some point of mine. So you dare not risk cracking your facade of inerrancy, rectitude & winning.
Contrast that with Meow Mix, who is secure in the knowledge of her self worth, & her answers don't change that, be they right or wrong.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ask an evolutionist to explain Big breasted humans.

Hmmmm it's amazing what you can find with a simple yahoo search.

But then again ignorance is far easier than a yahoo search.

Breasts Shaped by Evolution for Babies, not Men

A study in the April 11th issue of "New Scientist" magazine argues that that cute roundness and up-tilt of a woman's breast evolved to prevent babies from smothering during breastfeeding, and that their shape wasn't designed by evolution to attract men.

Why Women Have Breasts

O[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]nce it has been established that it is possible for breasts to evolve, then an evolutionary scientist can argue that breasts can evolve as sexual characteristics. They could be like peacocks’ tails – arbitrary signals to the opposite sex. Peacock tails are big, fan-shaped and green, with lots of “eye-spots”. Other birds have long tapering tails or bright red plumage. It seems that it doesn’t really matter what sort of plumage evolves, as long as it belongs recognisably to a certain species, and as long as the opposite sex develops a preference for it.[/FONT]