[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feotakahari]

Um, no. I don't know anyone like that, and I have no idea where you're getting that.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's not about belief. You can't argue a tornado into not existing, and believing in the tornado won't make it any less likely to lift you off the ground. Tornadoes, like evolution, exist regardless of humans and have no mechanism with which to care about the opinions of humans. But at the very least, you'd be confused by someone denying that tornadoes exist and claiming they're an illusion devised by Satan, right?

[(Anonymous)]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

That's the point I was making with that very exaggerated example, no one thinks like, especially someone who doesn't believe evolution is absolutely verifiable.

Tornadoes however are verifiable. I have yet to see a genuine Missing Link.

[feotakahari]

Oh, are you a Creationist? I thought this was just a philosophical enterprise.

As for missing links, we've got plenty of them (not to mention unicorns in the garden: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair) I'm not a scholar of the subject, having gotten most of my knowledge from Scientific American, but there are a lot of popular science books that explain the state of the research. I've heard The Panda's Thumb is pretty good.

Honestly, that's the one thing I want to get out here--that this is a living, breathing science, not a stagnant set of dictates. Scientists can and do argue with existing evolutionary models, and Darwin's old ideas have been pretty heavily revised thanks to new fossils and new DNA tests. If you want to argue the principles, read a few books, take a few classes, and get involved in the science. But please don't treat it like an abstract philosophical problem that nobody can or does research.