hunter

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 19 2012, 07:14 AM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 10:04 AM) QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 18 2012, 08:14 PM)QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 07:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. Ever had a cold one week, gotten over it, then caught it again? That's proof of evolution. The cold virus that infected you evolved into something else, something new that your body wasn't familiar with fighting. Sure. But it is just a different strain of virus it has not evolved into something else. Just as a great dane is a different breed of dog than a chihuahua. They're look and may even behave quite differently but they're still both dogs. Not speciation. "thats the thing about science, its true whether you believe it or not..." Right up until another scientist comes along and says," Oh that. Well about that. We had that all wrong."

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 08:22 PM)QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 08:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. heres one of many... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/201...-off-australia/ Nope. Still a shark. And if this hybrid can actually produce offspring it shows that what scientists have classified as separate and distinct species are in fact not. The bacteria is closer but it is still bacteria. weak... its just more proof that life evolves over time to adapt to its surrounding conditions. for all we know now in another 250 million years they might grow lungs and become amphibious So now you think the actual science you're espousing is a weak argument? It's not weak. It's actual biology. Science. Hybrids are most often infertile so likely doomed to extinction. Just look at mules. Maybe these "new" sharks aren't infertile. Maybe we will end up with a new type of shark. But it is still a shark. Not evolved. Just to be clear I believe in evolution. My degree is in it. I just said it's not directly observable. It's based on inference from observed evidence. Still to me a matter of some faith since I've never seen it happen. No one has. I've seen cat fish and octopi "walk" quite a way across open ground. Very compelling. But they're still just catfish and octopi. I also believe in God. Some say the two are mutually exclusive, but based on observable evidence and experience in my life I have faith. Both beliefs reasonable conclusions based on evidence observed by me. Am I going to tell you what you should believe or try to convince you of God's existence? Nope. I wouldn't begin to argue that as those are personal experiences specific to me, and you wouldn't begin to accept it as evidentiary. And I wouldn't expect you too. I would, however, expect you to accept known scientific principles such as the hybrid case above if you're going to use science as the basis for your stance on the matter. We all know nobody is going to change anybody's mind on these issues. Especially in a Rock Band Forum. Hmm. You think these kinds of discussions go on in Britteny Spears forums? Neil has sparked conversation and lively debate. And isn't that what art is suppose to do? Cheers.

QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 18 2012, 08:14 PM)QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 07:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. Ever had a cold one week, gotten over it, then caught it again? That's proof of evolution. The cold virus that infected you evolved into something else, something new that your body wasn't familiar with fighting. Sure. But it is just a different strain of virus it has not evolved into something else. Just as a great dane is a different breed of dog than a chihuahua. They're look and may even behave quite differently but they're still both dogs. Not speciation.

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 08:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. heres one of many... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/201...-off-australia/ Nope. Still a shark. And if this hybrid can actually produce offspring it shows that what scientists have classified as separate and distinct species are in fact not. The bacteria is closer but it is still bacteria.

I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed.

At least you put the word almost in there.

QUOTE (Tony R @ Jan 18 2012, 04:09 PM) QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Jan 18 2012, 05:20 AM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Jan 17 2012, 11:44 PM) QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Jan 17 2012, 12:16 AM) The Watchmaker analogy has been around a lot longer than Neil Peart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy And its also been very well destroyed as a theory by several evolutionary biologists. Intelligent Design isnt science, just religion in a not very convincing costume. Ok I guess I'm not done with this thread after all because your post is friggin' hilarious. Evolutionary biologist? What is that? Is it a person who has spent way too much money getting a degree in big words and guessing? Read the book The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel or see the movie and then we can talk. Until then degrees in evolution don't mean a thing to a man of faith. Didn't you hear? Evolution is a THEORY. This is the most embarrassing post of 2012. I am pretty sure it will remain so. "Theory" in this instance (The Theory Evolution) actually means "fact". Sorry, no. Law is fact. Theory is almost there but remains unproven. Chances are many things about it will still be discovered and the theory will change. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

So here is an interview with a moving guy from the moving pictures album cover with The answer

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Jan 17 2012, 10:54 PM)QUOTE (drbirdsong @ Jan 17 2012, 11:20 PM) Didn't you hear? Evolution is a THEORY. It's clear you don't understand what that means. Evolution is a theory just as Gravity is a theory. Actually Gravity is a law isn't it? Theories can become law but until they're proven beyond doubt they are are still theory. Evolution is a theory. There's lots of evidence to support it, but no one has ever witnessed a mud skipper turning into a lizard etc. So it's not directly observable. Sure we can witness the tools evolution might use to achieve speciation in a our life time, i.e. natural selection, but not actual evolution. The semantics of science theory and the lay term theory has always caused issues. They both basically mean, "I think this is what's happening here and I've done some tests that support the conclusion but I can't, as yet, prove it." As a side note my faith remains strong even though I have a degree in Biological Anthropology because of what I've experienced. That, and there is no reasonable explanation for the big bang as of this writing. I wasn't brought up to believe. I was brought up to reason out what I believe by the evidence presented to me. Whatever form it takes. OK that's my 2 cents.

You're up rider.

Already have. But I've said too much.

Well if Grusin has a song by the same title is it possible your media player is going on line to find the album info and just pulling up the wrong thing?

QUOTE (ridertoo98 @ Dec 31 2011, 03:07 AM) bugatti 1936 57SC? That's the one. Go.

Guess the one above.

I loves me some chocolate. BUFORI Geneva. Reminds me of... http://supercarspecs.com/images/bugatti/1936_57SC_atlantic/images/487674.jpg

Model rocketry was an elective in my JR. High. Launched many a rockets. My favorite was the one that landed on the fire station's shake shingle roof. "Hi Mr. Fireman. Can you get my smoldering rocket off your very flammable roof for me?"

I know a few Rush loving women. I married the one whose birthday, the 21st combined with mine, the 12th and made 2112.

The spokes aren't lying in flat plane. What about the space created by the wheel hub?

I fhink it's somfing Spainish...

Prayers sent.

QUOTE (hughes&kettner @ Dec 10 2011, 11:39 AM) i LOVE rik and triumph as well. but i do not like anyone covering RUSH. i appreciate the notion for sure, but you don't see anyone doing a "cover" of the mona lisa?!?!?!?!?! now do ya? glad folks are having fun with it, but if i wanna hear RUSH, i listen to the real thang. Nah. Never see that. But I get what you're saying. To each his own. Mona Lisa Reproductions

D'oh! Not an Alfa. Rider nailed it.

QUOTE (Squids @ Dec 9 2011, 09:54 PM) I don't like what he said or the way he said it either but everyone's entitled to their opinion... without having to back it up with their own musical abilities! Haha. But, it's interesting you bring that up because we might do a contest early next year where you could do it better... if you dare try it. Then you can put your money where your mouth is or fingers are (on guitar or bass). Not that you'd need to do it for that reason of course but if you did step up to the plate and join the competition you'd maybe win a few cool prizes. I do have a few fun Rush things here to give away like one of Neil's drum heads signed by the whole band and a bunch of his live played drum sticks beautifully battered. So that and for the pride of it... plus a few other cool things about it. I'll let you guys know about that but it's not for anyone to have to prove anything. Just something to get involved with Neil Peart Drums... otherwise we're having all the fun. But we made this for any musician to use. More on that a little later when the next Peart volume is ready to be released. Not too long from now. Sweet. Sounds like a fun contest. A group of us here on the forums have been putting together covers for a few years now for fun. (The link is in my sig if you're interested) It's no small task and one of the hardest things to find is that rare breed of drummer who not only has the chops but knows how to record the set too. Fortunately there's some of those folks here on the forum.