Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Wildswanderer]

That is because you won't even ask proper questions.

Let's go over the concept of "Power" first. Power is not energy. The amount of powder is directly tied with energy. Bullets have kinetic energy. The formula for that is KE = (1/2)mv^2

Power is a rate. It is the rate of delivery of energy. It is the formula for power is P = KE/t.

Do you understand this so far? Do you need links to any of these?

This is basic stuff. Explain what claim you are trying to make.
Are you still claiming a certain bullet causes more damage to tissue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is basic stuff. Explain what claim you are trying to make.
Are you still claiming a certain bullet causes more damage to tissue?

It may be basic, but you have shown that you do not understand it. Do you remember that you foolishly thought that holes from a .22 round were somehow applicable? Or did you forget that huge error already?

And you have it backwards. You were the one claiming that certain bullets cause more damage. That was never my claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what? Non of my arguments depens on evolution being Atheistic .......

But it sure does look like it depends on you being religious

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean, we don't don't call people who accept gravity Newtonists, do we?

Indeed, we don't.
Today, they are called Einsteinists.

 

[We Never Know]

I believe God formed man from the ground through evolution and with probably some tweaking by God at the end. So the mutations that left man as a naked ape would be expected if God did that with man to make him distinct or something.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It may be basic, but you have shown that you do not understand it. Do you remember that you foolishly thought that holes from a .22 round were somehow applicable? Or did you forget that huge error already?

And you have it backwards. You were the one claiming that certain bullets cause more damage. That was never my claim.

A .22 sized bullet especially a. 22 mag isn't much smaller than a. 223. Again, what are you trying to claim?
In the hunting world both the.223 and .22 mag are considered varmint rounds. The biggest difference in performance is how much powder they have behind them. You can download .223 so it performs similar to a.22 mag or load it hotter to reach out farther and have more punch. So what is your beef in the comparison between a .22 and a .223?

 

[leroy]

I think it's a silly and strange term to use. I mean, we don't don't call people who accept gravity Newtonists, do we? Or people who accept the germ theory of disease Kochists, right?
Sounds to me like that poster was spot-on.

That is because there are no (and has never been) alternatives to newton’s theory of gravity so the term newtonist has never been necessary and never made it in to the dicconaries

in the case of Darwin there are and has always been alternative explanations on how organism evolve, we need the term “Darwinism” to distinguish it from other alternatives ……… this is not “creationists stuff” scientists use it all the time…………… for example look for any paper or book written by Dawkins, you will note the term “Darwinism” or “Darwinist” everywhere…….


What word would you use to distinguish someone who claims that organisms evolve through random mutations + natural selection (Darwinism) vs someone who claims that mutations are not random or someone who claims that random genetic drift plays a major role (neutralist) ?


This is just semantics, but in my opinion, it is a useful word

 

[Subduction Zone]

A .22 sized bullet especially a. 22 mag isn't much smaller than a. 223. Again, what are you trying to claim?
In the hunting world both the.223 and .22 mag are considered varmint rounds. The biggest difference in performance is how much powder they have behind them. You can download .223 so it performs similar to a.22 mag or load it hotter to reach out farther and have more punch. So what is your beef in the comparison between a .22 and a .223?

The topic is how much damage a round has and why. I was trying to go over the high school level physics that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is because there are no (and has never been) alternatives to newton’s theory of gravity so the term newtonist has never been necessary and never made it in to the dicconaries

in the case of Darwin there are and has always been alternative explanations on how organism evolve, we need the term “Darwinism” to distinguish it from other alternatives ……… this is not “creationists stuff” scientists use it all the time…………… for example look for any paper or book written by Dawkins, you will note the term “Darwinism” or “Darwinist” everywhere…….


What word would you use to distinguish someone who claims that organisms evolve through random mutations + natural selection (Darwinism) vs someone who claims that mutations are not random or someone who claims that random genetic drift plays a major role (neutralist) ?


This is just semantics, but in my opinion, it is a useful word

I see, so you use that term to set up a strawman argument.

 

[leroy]

Because all too many demonize Darwin, including misunderstanding where he was coming from. On top of that, we know myriads more about evolution than what he could have known.

Because all too many demonize Darwin, including misunderstanding where he was coming from. On top of that, we know myriads more about evolution than what he could have known.

Well I am not demonizing Darwin, my view is in line with what scientists say

1 we know that organisms evolve and that we likely share a common ancestor with other organisms

2 we don’t know through what mechanism we evolve,

 

[Wildswanderer]

The topic is how much damage a round has and why. I was trying to go over the high school level physics that you do not understand.

If that's the topic then my observations are valid.
I haven't seen you offer any of your own observations so you haven't been helpful in explaining...all you have offered are general concepts anyone can find online.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I am not demonizing Darwin, my view is in line with what scientists say

1 we know that organisms evolve and that we likely share a common ancestor with other organisms

2 we don’t know through what mechanism we evolve,

1 is correct.

2 is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that's the topic then my observations are valid.
I haven't seen you offer any of your own observations so you haven't been helpful in explaining...all you have offered are general concepts anyone can find online.

Oh my! You need to learn how to reason logically. Just because you do not understand why you are wrong does not make your observations valid. And it appears that you are afraid that you are wrong. Why do you keep running away from the topic?

I was trying to explain to you why you were wrong. Do you want to learn or do you want to run away?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is because there are no (and has never been) alternatives to newton’s theory of gravity so the term newtonist has never been necessary and never made it in to the dicconaries

Well, there's that Einstein guy.
So that's not the reason.

in the case of Darwin there are and has always been alternative explanations on how organism evolve, we need the term “Darwinism” to distinguish it from other alternatives ……… this is not “creationists stuff” scientists use it all the time…………… for example look for any paper or book written by Dawkins, you will note the term “Darwinism” or “Darwinist” everywhere…….

There are no "alternative explanations" about how organisms evolve. "God did it" isn't an explanation.

This labelling seems only to apply to evolution so I'd say it's definitely "creationist stuff."

What word would you use to distinguish someone who claims that organisms evolve through random mutations + natural selection (Darwinism) vs someone who claims that mutations are not random or someone who claims that random genetic drift plays a major role (neutralist) ?

All of that falls under the umbrella of evolution.

This is just semantics, but in my opinion, it is a useful word

Yeah, creationist semantics. Which is a waste of time and a diversion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I am not demonizing Darwin, my view is in line with what scientists say

1 we know that organisms evolve and that we likely share a common ancestor with other organisms

2 we don’t know through what mechanism we evolve,

This view is not in line with what scientists say.

 

[metis]

2 we don’t know through what mechanism we evolve,

In general, we do. Mutations create diversity within gene pools and then genetic drift and natural selection work on them from there. Mutations are commonplace and have multiple potential causes.

 

[leroy]

1 is correct.

2 is not.

Ok, the I will correct my claim

Nobody except for “ Subduction Zone“ knows how organisms evolve…………… but since he will not share his secret knowledge with anybody then we can ignore him

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, the I will correct my claim

Nobody except for “ Subduction Zone“ knows how organisms evolve…………… but since he will not share his secret knowledge with anybody then we can ignore him

On my!! No. Still wrong.

This time you used a black and white fallacy.

 

[leroy]

All of that falls under the umbrella of evolution.

.

Yes, but not under the umbrella of “Darwinism”.............. that is my point, there are different models of evolution We need terms like Darwinism and neutralism to differentiate one model forma the other

You are making a big deal out of something very small

The fact is that someone how the term “Darwinist” (unlike newtonist) made it in to the diccionaries and in to our languages, and even scholars use this term in books and papers………….. therefore there is nothing inappropriate about using the term

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh my! You need to learn how to reason logically. Just because you do not understand why you are wrong does not make your observations valid. And it appears that you are afraid that you are wrong. Why do you keep running away from the topic?

I was trying to explain to you why you were wrong. Do you want to learn or do you want to run away?

I haven't run away from the topic. Wrong about what? You haven't even defined what is right.