Home / Community / Forum / Support Area / Poker News /

Darwens Theory

Old
Default
Darwens Theory - Fri Feb 25, 2011, 05:25 PM
(#1)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
I have noted a few recent threads reference "knuckle draggers", now being a firm believer in Darwins "proven" theory of evolution I am concerned that this is intended as an insult of some kind to those of us that accept our quadraped ancestory, or it may be a slanted insult that anyone who does not accept a posters given point ot view must be further down the evolutionary chain than the poster.

Either way this thread has no intrinsic purpose in itself other than to merely point out that us "knuckle draggers" have evolved the same mental capacity as the remainder of the homo erectus sub-species and that the use of opposable thumbs is not unique.

Last edited by bogweed1964; Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 05:39 PM.. Reason: Correct RCSDStar's typo error
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 05:35 PM
(#2)
RCSDStar's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 49
BronzeStar
the only thing I read was "I can't spell the name Darwin".
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 05:55 PM
(#3)
Darkman61's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,225
BronzeStar
He probably got his thumbs mixed up. After all, it is Friday
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 06:00 PM
(#4)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Too right Dman, don't know my Merlot from my Shiraz Cabernet
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 06:33 PM
(#5)
Ace King 61's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 421
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogweed1964 View Post
being a firm believer in Darwins "proven" theory of evolution
I feel so sorry for you.....but, this is not the correct forum to discuss it.
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 07:26 PM
(#6)
Darkman61's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,225
BronzeStar
Oh Ace. Don't start. We've had enough bible bashing in this place
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 07:28 PM
(#7)
!!!111Dan's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,290
You bring up a good idea I think Johnny. Would it be a good idea to have a "Non-Poker Related" forum? I think it would. It would cut down on the clutter in the general forum. It would also put non-poker items in a place where, if you don't wish to check it out, you don't have to.
Also, this community is quite interactive...we discuss sports and other topics as friends and I personally wouldn't like that to cease. So maybe if we had a place for people to put anything non-poker related in, it could be beneficial. It should still adhere to the rules of no politics or religion imo...those 2 cause way too much antagonism.
Curious what the mods, staff, and everyone thinks on this.

ps. bog.... just wonderin' about a couple things. What about that little issue of the "missing link?" 2nd, why do domesticated pigs devolve to wild boars in only 2 generations? ..

Last edited by !!!111Dan; Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 07:58 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 08:22 PM
(#8)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by !!!111Dan View Post
Would it be a good idea to have a "Non-Poker Related" forum? I think it would.
I agree. +1

For the anti-clutter reasons mentioned.
 
Old
Default
Fri Feb 25, 2011, 10:48 PM
(#9)
tazz864's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,143
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogweed1964 View Post
I have noted a few recent threads reference "knuckle draggers", now being a firm believer in Darwins "proven" theory of evolution I am concerned that this is intended as an insult of some kind to those of us that accept our quadraped ancestory, or it may be a slanted insult that anyone who does not accept a posters given point ot view must be further down the evolutionary chain than the poster.

Either way this thread has no intrinsic purpose in itself other than to merely point out that us "knuckle draggers" have evolved the same mental capacity as the remainder of the homo erectus sub-species and that the use of opposable thumbs is not unique.
Ummmm, by definition, a "theory" once proven, is a "law."

I'm just sayin'...
+1 for intelligent design...

Also, if your so big on evolution, you honestly think life happened "di novo' from some random organic soup?? With all the medical breakthroughs, why cant 'spontaneous generation' be duplicated under pristine conditions in a lab??

Last edited by tazz864; Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 10:56 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 04:33 AM
(#10)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by !!!111Dan View Post
You bring up a good idea I think Johnny. Would it be a good idea to have a "Non-Poker Related" forum? I think it would. It would cut down on the clutter in the general forum. It would also put non-poker items in a place where, if you don't wish to check it out, you don't have to.
Also, this community is quite interactive...we discuss sports and other topics as friends and I personally wouldn't like that to cease. So maybe if we had a place for people to put anything non-poker related in, it could be beneficial. It should still adhere to the rules of no politics or religion imo...those 2 cause way too much antagonism.
Curious what the mods, staff, and everyone thinks on this.

ps. bog.... just wonderin' about a couple things. What about that little issue of the "missing link?" 2nd, why do domesticated pigs devolve to wild boars in only 2 generations? ..
To be in honest I thought the General Forum already was pretty much non-poker but an additional trash can to throw our muses in would be good.

As for the missing link Dan, there ain't one, fossil records are complete enough to trace us back as far as you'd like to go, a bit like Ancestry.com without a flashy website.

Your pigs have been artificially "evolved" by humans by selective breeding, once that constraint is removed they return along a natural evolutionary path governed by the gene pool in which they are breeding. Similar to stopping pedigree dog breeding, it wouldn't take long for the mixed gene pool to create dogs that all looked similar and intrinsically the same as they were prior to selective breeding, ergo Dingos in Australia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz864 View Post
Ummmm, by definition, a "theory" once proven, is a "law."

I'm just sayin'...
+1 for intelligent design...

Also, if your so big on evolution, you honestly think life happened "di novo' from some random organic soup?? With all the medical breakthroughs, why cant 'spontaneous generation' be duplicated under pristine conditions in a lab??
Thats a choice selection of the meanining of the word theory, I'll throw in Wikipideas as I'm too lazy to type out the Oxford English:

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such ...

As for "spontaneous" life in a laboratory, I don't think for one minute that life was created in a laboratory 3.8 billion years ago and therefore cannot see the likelihood of it occurring in one now, maybe if an experiment was run for 10 billion years, the length of time it took for that life to form in the first instance, a similar if not uniquely different result could be anticipated.

Last edited by bogweed1964; Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 04:38 AM..
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 05:11 AM
(#11)
tazz864's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,143
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogweed1964 View Post
To be in honest I thought the General Forum already was pretty much non-poker but an additional trash can to throw our muses in would be good.

Thats a choice selection of the meanining of the word theory, I'll throw in Wikipideas as I'm too lazy to type out the Oxford English:

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such ...

As for "spontaneous" life in a laboratory, I don't think for one minute that life was created in a laboratory 3.8 billion years ago and therefore cannot see the likelihood of it occurring in one now, maybe if an experiment was run for 10 billion years, the length of time it took for that life to form in the first instance, a similar if not uniquely different result could be anticipated.
I think I would like someone with similar flawed logic at my table. By that reasoning, such a player should 'expect' 1,000,000 royal flushes to be dealt before 1 pair...

Im just sayin
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 05:17 AM
(#12)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz864 View Post
I think I would like someone with similar flawed logic at my table. By that reasoning, such a player should 'expect' 1,000,000 royal flushes to be dealt before 1 pair...

Im just sayin
Flawed as in not agreeing with yours ?
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 05:50 AM
(#13)
ericlee1984's Avatar
Since: Nov 2010
Posts: 311
BronzeStar
this is totally random but tazz what are you doing in your avatar?? trying to crack your neck? maybe you should see a chiropractor about that.... does it hurt when you look both ways for traffic? or do you just not look and hope for the best outcome?
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 05:52 AM
(#14)
tazz864's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,143
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogweed1964 View Post
Flawed as in not agreeing with yours ?
In response, of course I would say 'yes.' However, there CAN be more flaws in your logic than just the obvious one--

Im just saying...
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 05:56 AM
(#15)
tazz864's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,143
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericlee1984 View Post
this is totally random but tazz what are you doing in your avatar?? trying to crack your neck? maybe you should see a chiropractor about that.... does it hurt when you look both ways for traffic? or do you just not look and hope for the best outcome?
Excellent analogy. Evolution believers can believe in all the randomness they want, but I'm pretty sure they STILL look both ways before crossing...

Im just saying
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 06:04 AM
(#16)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz864 View Post
In response, of course I would say 'yes.' However, there CAN be more flaws in your logic than just the obvious one--

Im just saying...

My logic says that if life is equated to the 1 in 650,000 hand chance of having a royal flush one could reasonably expect another royal flush within another 650,000 hands.

Your logic says that because the dealer cannot purposefully deal you a royal flush to command that there will only ever be one royal flush dealt ad infinitum.

I must admit that I am missing the obvious flaw let alone the hidden ones.
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 06:33 AM
(#17)
tazz864's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,143
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogweed1964 View Post
My logic says that if life is equated to the 1 in 650,000 hand chance of having a royal flush one could reasonably expect another royal flush within another 650,000 hands.

Your logic says that because the dealer cannot purposefully deal you a royal flush to command that there will only ever be one royal flush dealt ad infinitum.

I must admit that I am missing the obvious flaw let alone the hidden ones.
The fact that my logic is being misinterpreted is telling me that perhaps others can't understand it, or have to mutate it to conform to their belief system. In any case, they should not try to represent that they can describe it. To clarify, my logic simply states that even if the RANDOM dealer puts out 4 cards to the royal flush... it is still more likely that he'll pair the board than deal the royal--

Im just sayin...
PS... If you cant see the obvious flaw, specifically, that I think Im right; it really makes no sense in trying to explain more flaws... Anyway, I never said either was obvious OR hidden. Although putting words in my mouth was a good try--
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 06:54 AM
(#18)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazz864 View Post
The fact that my logic is being misinterpreted is telling me that perhaps others can't understand it, or have to mutate it to conform to their belief system. In any case, they should not try to represent that they can describe it. To clarify, my logic simply states that even if the RANDOM dealer puts out 4 cards to the royal flush... it is still more likely that he'll pair the board than deal the royal--

Im just sayin...
PS... If you cant see the obvious flaw, specifically, that I think Im right; it really makes no sense in trying to explain more flaws... Anyway, I never said either was obvious OR hidden. Although putting words in my mouth was a good try--
If the royal flush represents "life" then my logic totally agrees that all non-royal flush hands dealt result in non-life and the chance of being dealt life are very slim in comparison to any potential other hand.

This in turn reflects upon the probability of creating spontaneous life in a laboratory which was your original point. My response being that given enough time and enough hands a royal flush will be dealt.

I am failing to see what your subsequent posts have done to endorse your original point or for that matter provide a flaw to my point.

With regards to putting words in your mouth I have merely used your original analogy to represent the logic being argued and I think if you read through your posts you will see at what point you stated there was an "obvious" flaw in my point and by inference others not so obvious.

Quote
In response, of course I would say 'yes.' However, there CAN be more flaws in your logic than just the obvious one--

Im just saying...
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 09:20 AM
(#19)
broahes's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 436
BronzeStar
Boy did we not open up ourselves a can of shit in this thread??

I may have missed something but most people here are talking about Darwin's theory as the theory of evolution.. Darwin's "theory" was actually a proposal of Natural Selection as the mechanism for evolution.

The theory of evolution was not born with Darwin. What was once known as naturalistic biology can be dated back to the early 6th century and Greek philosopher Animixmander.

So.. are we talking Darwin.. Darwen.. or Evolution?

Evolution of species is a proven fact as far as our limited minds can comprehend science. Natural Selection is a Theory until it can in fact be proven. A theory is an educated guess.

It is a proven fact that I will catch the mod's eyes with my use of the word shit.

It is my theory that this thread is going to turn into a intelligent design vs evolution spew fest.. of which no side will convince the other that they are in fact correct, because they both are in fact.. just theory.
 
Old
Default
Sat Feb 26, 2011, 10:00 AM
(#20)
bogweed1964's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
I'm sure the curtain will fall on this thread way before that old chestnut has chance to start roasting.

But to pour some water on that fire its worth noting that as most branches of the Christian church now accept evolution, realising that it does not in itself exclude a creation theory, the argument is no longer that of two opposing views that it once was.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com