Delaware students can now choose their own race (Yes, RACE!) under new regulations.

[Final-Fan]

o_O.Q said:

Final-Fan said:

0.  Not sure why you quoted me without comment ... are you admitting it? 

1.  At the time I was underestimating your stupidity. 
"your term "adapted wings" is pointless."
BECAUSE
"what is the point of calling penguin flippers "evolved wings" when they are really just "evolved legs"?"

ANALOGY It's like you saying "I'm a grown up eleven year old."  Sure, you used to be eleven.  You used to be a lot of ages.  What's the point? 

CONCLUSION If you entire argument is that penguins, which currently do not have actual wings, evolved from a species that in the past did have actual wings, then I agree with your claim. 

But I don't see why you insist on using "evolved wings" to describe what penguins are swimming through the ocean with instead of a term that describes the sort of limb they CURRENTLY have instead of what they USED to have.  Are you the one who has trouble with differentiating past and present? 

3.  I see now that I will have to literally draw you a picture. 
"there has been a living continuum of creatures leading gradualistically from elephants to fish (via a common ancestor in the past)"*

                          common ancestor
                  _--'''                                '''--_
elephants                                                fish

4.  In order for you to claim that what I am saying is wrong, then you have to dispute this actual argument, not its relevance.  In order for your argument about strict natural groups that are clearly differentiable from one another with no gray area in between to hold up, in my opinion you have to explain how to differentiate between the natural groups that creatues of the past would fall into, not just creatures of the present.  However, if you want to just talk about strict artificial groups that humans can identify in presently living creatures to help us understand the world we live in, then you don't have to worry about creatures of the past. 

5.  I don't even understand what your "evolved wings" claim IS, so how could I concede it?  I conceded that they were "evolved wings" in the sense that the flippers they currently have "evolved" FROM "wings", but I don't know if that is what you mean by the term you insist on using. 

And your "two claims" aren't including disputing the claims of others. 

6.  "( i think i'm wrong here its probably near zero )"  Yeah you better fucking believe you're wrong, since I already explained this to you.  The ISS loses altitude due to the "near zero" part.  So if the atmosphere goes up until there is NO Earth air left whatsoever, then the ISS is not in space.  But if the ISS is in space, and there is Earth air in space, then you have not yet come up with a "natural, strict" differentiation of the atmosphere versus outer space.  Humans use a certain atmospheric pressure at the cutoff point, but this is clearly an artificial distinction made for convenience; the line is drawn between black and white in the middle of a gray area. 

*7.  "what? are you now claiming that elephants evolved into fish?"
"No, that isn't even remotely close to what I am arguing."
"there has been a living continuum of creatures leading gradualistically from elephants to fish"
uh... ok, if you say so
"there has been a living continuum of creatures leading gradualistically from elephants to fish (via a common ancestor in the past)"

Oh.  Deliberately cutting off the quote midsentence because that was literally the only possible way for you to twist my words in such a way to allow even the appearance of being able to misunderstand me.  Well, now I know for a fact that you are either trolling me or have been driven literally insane by your biases. 

1.  "But I don't see why you insist on using "evolved wings" to describe what penguins are swimming through the ocean with instead of a term that describes the sort of limb they CURRENTLY "

do you understand what adapted means? "adapted" takes into consideration that the subject has been modified in some way... how is this difficult to understand?

3.  ""there has been a living continuum of creatures leading gradualistically from elephants to fish (via a common ancestor in the past)"*

                          common ancestor
                  _--'''                                '''--_
elephants                                                fish"

lol so you don't understand what gradually means... "gradual" refers to a process that starts at one point in time and continues until another point in time

its not applied without an appreciation for the flow of time forwards... you don't say for example that a man gradually becomes a child... that would be dumb right? what do we say instead?

i was honestly joking when i said that you don't seem to understand the concept of linear time... and here you are confirming it 

4.  "In order for you to claim that what I am saying is wrong, then you have to dispute this actual argument, not its relevance."

are... are you trying to state here that an argument cannot be right and irrelevant?

uh the sky is blue... how does that relate to whether an elephant and a fish are from two distinct separate groups of animals? lol

"in my opinion you have to explain how to differentiate between the natural groups that creatues of the past would fall into"

why would i have to do so to talk about creatures in the present?

5.  "I don't even understand what your "evolved wings" claim IS, so how could I concede it?"

"  If it's true that penguins have "adapted wings" and not flippers, doesn't it also have to be true that bats have "adapted legs" and not wings?"

i agreed with you here that bats would also have adapted legs

6.  "But if the ISS is in space, and there is Earth air in space, then you have not yet come up with a "natural, strict" differentiation of the atmosphere versus outer space.  Humans use a certain atmospheric pressure at the cutoff point"

how you can't see that you completely contradicted yourself here is amazing to me lmao

but yes i was incorrect originally to claim that space is at an air pressure of zero

but regardless the fact remains that we use a particular air pressure as a means of determining the boundary... how are you having problems with such a simple concept lol?

7.  ""there has been a living continuum of creatures leading gradualistically from elephants to fish (via a common ancestor in the past)"

Oh.  Deliberately cutting off the quote midsentence because that was literally the only possible way for you to twist my words in such a way to allow even the appearance of being able to misunderstand me"

again.. your point even if we disregard your complete lack of understanding of linear time and its connection to concepts like "gradual" is not relevant to an argument made about present conditions

and again i must marvel at how you can't comprehend this

to you the past, present and future are all the same? lol

1.  Avoided the question. 

3.  Sheer idiocy.  If I say "A and B were close but gradually drifted apart (from togetherness at Z)" (either literally or figuratively) would it be foolish to say that "there is a gradualistic series of changes in position between A and B (via Z)"?  You are saying that I am saying that this means A drifted all the way from B's present position.  This is clearly false and clearly demonstrates ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the entire point being made. 

P.S.  You didn't even address if what I labeled the CONCLUSION accurately represented your claim.  Too caught up in trolling to care about your own position? 

4.  If natural strict groupings exist in nature and not just the human mind, then why wouldn't they exist for creatures that lived in the past?  See 7. below.

5.  That's restating the point, not articulating what the point actually is.  The bat analogy was to test to see if you were being consistent.  In that case, you were.  Congrats. 

6.  How is it a natural strict grouping to say, "the boundary between atmosphere and outer space is the altitude where the speed necessary to aerodynamically support the airplane's full weight equals orbital velocity (assuming wing loading of a typical airplane)."  (The Karman Line, from Wikipedia)

"Humans use a certain atmospheric pressure at the cutoff point, but this is clearly an artificial distinction made for convenience; the line is drawn between black and white in the middle of a gray area."  You cut me off midsentence again in a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion.  Get a new trick, bro—you're painted into a corner. 

For funsies:  from Wikipedia again: 
"An atmosphere does not abruptly end at any given height, but becomes progressively thinner with altitude. Also, depending on how the various layers that make up the space around the Earth are defined (and depending on whether these layers are considered part of the actual atmosphere), the definition of the edge of space could vary considerably: If one were to consider the thermosphere and exosphere part of the atmosphere and not of space, one might have to extend the boundary to space to at least 10,000 km (6,200 mi) above sea level. The Kármán line thus is an arbitrary definition based on the following considerations... 

"Although the calculated altitude was not exactly 100 km, Kármán proposed that 100 km be the designated boundary to space, because the round number is more memorable, and the calculated altitude varies minutely as certain parameters are varied. An international committee recommended the 100 km line to the FAI, and upon adoption, it became widely accepted as the boundary to space for many purposes. However, there is still no international legal definition of the demarcation between a country's air space and outer space. 

"Another hurdle to strictly defining the boundary to space is the dynamic nature of Earth's atmosphere. For example, at an altitude of 1,000 km (620 mi), the atmosphere's density can vary by a factor of five, depending on the time of day, time of year, AP magnetic index, and recent solar flux."

7.  You have not explained why your "natural strict groupings" should not be required to address creatures that lived in the past in order to be considered valid.  This is clearly because you cannot do so.  This could be explained by either willful ignorance or by you being a troll, but from other aspects of your posts I conclude that you are a troll. 

Later, gator.  Any reply that doesn't give due respect to the bolded text in 4 and 7 will be ignored.