Joshthefirst: look who's calling me foolish. The guy who claims a bonobo as a distant relative and an ape like ancestor.

Joshthefirst: look who's calling me foolish. The guy who claims a bonobo as a distant relative and an ape like ancestor.

wiegraf: For off, why does life need to replicate? Well, wouldnt that be obvious? This question reeks of shortsightedness with regards to the implications of evolution/abiogenesis, or evem the fact that matter is in a constant flux. And it actually is a poser to ID proponents, not the other way round...

Two lights are beamed, one makes I through a hole un a wall, the other does not. N
ow, let
's grant the light beam consciousness mid flight. When it starts to ponder on reality, it might look back and say wow, just who is responsible for this? Incredible, it happened to have the correct trajectory to scale through the wall. It just about had the correct frequency to remain whole as well! As it gains emotions etc it begins to focus on the rewards, eg; it just missed an asteroid by a second, that was close, it had just the right length to avoid the right speed needed to escape that. Excellent, now I'm happy, something must be rooting for me, something wants me to feel joy, designing me for this purpose. To live and experience.

No, it was just a beam of light emitted by a star that got lucky (well, not like the other particles care, as they aren't conscious, but the particle wouldn't note that). In its bias though it wouldnt notice myriad issues, eg, why was the wall there in the first place? If it were designed purposely, should it not have been granted the ability to change speed, or switch direction, why van it exist only within a very short, exacting frequency, etc etc. Same way ds focuses only what confirms his bias bit ignored obvious flaws. Eg, gender put about intelligently and purposely, yet the reproductive system is so badly put together it is responsible for the more human deaths than any other factor. Are there really not amy much, MUCH more efficient designs for that? Or exactly why the need for gender in the first place, why can't we pick? There are species that are asexual, no? We walk around assuming it has to be so, or its best because our brains are wired to think so, in other words, simply because of our bias...

And of course we now come to why the need to live. Obvious. The particles wired with the need to live, live. They are the ones that go on to survive as clearly the other particles arent alive. And those alive that do not have the 'will' to live obviously, and again, die out.

Evolution is very, very simple at its core. Now, note here ds will miss issues with immortality. Most beings I know of would lobe to be able to live indeterminably, to decide on when to kick the bucket themselves, should they even choose to. And there ate species that are note or else immortal, it is far from impossible. Indeed many see this as a great measly humans will achieve before the turn of the next century, so, why did these intelligences not bother with that?

In fact, just what exactly was their purpose, as they've done a real terrible job if we were the purpose. Egregious. And why the mystery, why the hiding?

Questions like these are what id proponents should be answering when the claim am intelligent will is behind this

Edits later. This phone is horrid as far as posting is concerned.

Logicboy03: This thread should be titled

"The folly and end of credibility of Deepsight's and Joshthefirst's stances on evolution"

aManFromMars:
And the brilliant alternative is we were moulded from sand?

Deep Sight:

Well sir, can you please tell me exactly what matter humans and other creatures were molded from - even if by evolution alone? - if not stardust?

Your ignorance stinks.

Deep Sight:

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

Logicboy03:


For all animals that we know of

All animals evolved.
All body parts evolved.


How is evolution not going to expalin the evolution of the mammary glands?

You mistake unchangable logic for dogmatic scientism. This is your silly folly

aManFromMars:
And the brilliant alternative is we were moulded from sand? And the woman was made from man's ribs.

Awesome. I forgot, the Bible isn't a scientific book.

Logicboy03:


Say whatever you want. Your dishonesty and ignorance has been exposed forever on this thread.


Anytime, you claim to be christlike or say anything about knowledge...I have a link to this thread.


Accepting speciation but not evolution. Gaddem dishonest human being

Evil Brain:

This is a perfect example of the ignorance I was talking about. You calling abiogenesis a flaw in evolution exposes your lack of understanding of the premise of the theory.

Evil Brain:
Just for giggles, I'm not going to tell you what is wrong with what you said. Let me see if you can do some googling and figure it out yourself. I'll let you know when you're getting warm.

rationalmind: @ deepsight,

The reason I will not accept "god did it" is because the question of "how" can not be answered.

Uyi Iredia:

I see. With the foregoing you state I suppose the following poser is relevant. How does the human brain result in conscious intellect ?

Deep Sight:
Sickening thoughtless rubbish. Was tempted to dignify you with a thorough response, but then I remembered that you are wiegraf. The speaker and thinker of d.aft nonsense. As such, responding will be a waste of my time. Bye.

rationalmind:

Uyi Iredia: Rebutting this sorry attempt at a comeback makes for a good sport.



This stems from the well-known nonsense of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because evolution is about life's devlopment. BTW I didn't beed to Google it. Your case falls ab initio because I never stated abiogenesis as part of the evolutionary theory (which I think is arguable). In all honesty, I stated abiogenesis as a problem for evolutionists given the connection to the theory. For one, evolutionists and some chemists have long argued for a 'General Theory of Evolution' which also cover abiogenesis since they think materialistic accounts for life's origins is plausible (Google 'TED Lee Kronin'). Two, a theory which claims ancestral organisms from which all life descended must explain the precursors to such organisms and so explain how such organisms came about. Which makes the case very clear_as in cdk007's video_the third reason which is how prebiological mutations and NS are invoked to explain how self-replicating molecules became living things. Only a intent fool will note such and say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.



Google Julius Rebek and summarize the relevance of his work to abiogenesis: confirm whether he invokes prebiological mutation or not.

Uyi Iredia:

How does the human brain result in consciousness ?

wiegraf:

This is a reply.

And don't worry, I'll make it even jucier once I get a proper PC. And you can continue to pretend you are offended and therefore won't respond, when the simple truth is you cannot address it. You've been told time and again your antics work only on sheeple, yet here you are....

Deep Sight:

Well, he does not know the "how" and as such it does not happen.

BTW don't expect a response. The context of your question may elude him again, as it did the first time.

Logicboy03:


For all animals that we know of

All animals evolved.
All body parts evolved.


How is evolution not going to expalin the evolution of the mammary glands?

You mistake unchangable logic for dogmatic scientism. This is your silly folly

Logicboy03:

Deepsight, answer naa?

Logicboy03: Deepsight fails to understand that it is not a question of if the body systems evolved...it is a question of how. Scientists aint questioning if the systems evolved...they are puzzled on how it evolved

Deepsight:

To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.

It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

Uyi Iredia: ^^^All of them really. The usual ones: plaetton, Evil Brain, logicboy and wiegraf and new ones: rationalmind even AMFM who's in a class of his own. They all miss (by wilfull ignorance) the aptness of what you ask. It's clear actually there are gaps. The least I would expect was a discussion on solutions not special appeals to unknown solutions, or silly dismissals and pretend there's no problem.

Deep Sight:
Ol boy forget it. You will never be worth my typing time again in this lifetime. Never.

Uyi Iredia: Rebutting this sorry attempt at a comeback makes for a good sport.



This stems from the well-known nonsense of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution because evolution is about life's devlopment. BTW I didn't beed to Google it. Your case falls ab initio because I never stated abiogenesis as part of the evolutionary theory (which I think is arguable). In all honesty, I stated abiogenesis as a problem for evolutionists given the connection to the theory. For one, evolutionists and some chemists have long argued for a 'General Theory of Evolution' which also cover abiogenesis since they think materialistic accounts for life's origins is plausible (Google 'TED Lee Kronin'). Two, a theory which claims ancestral organisms from which all life descended must explain the precursors to such organisms and so explain how such organisms came about. Which makes the case very clear_as in cdk007's video_the third reason which is how prebiological mutations and NS are invoked to explain how self-replicating molecules became living things. Only a intent fool will note such and say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.



Google Julius Rebek and summarize the relevance of his work to abiogenesis: confirm whether he invokes prebiological mutation or not.

Joshthefirst: lol. You're yet to show me how I'm dishonest. If you think you can pin someone as dishonest by screaming and being loud in accusation you are wasting your time. Feel free to continue though.

davidylan: so i painstakingly read this thread, hoping for some erudite insight to deepsight's posers. all i got was a lot of irrelevant handwaving, lols, smh and anti-god diatribes. oh dear.

Logicboy03: People like Deepsight are very dangerous to humanity- Spreading misinformation packaged with big words.

Deepsight is claiming that the theory of evolution is flawed because it cant fully explain the evolution of sexual reproduction and mammary glands.


First and foremost, when the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin, the theory couldnt explain many aspects of Genetics which it can do now. Evolution at Darwin's could not explain the evolution of morality and animal behaviour/psychology (but evolution explains it now). The point here is threefold;

1) The theory of evolution is centered on the change in the characteristics of living organisms over successive generations- and in that sense evolution is a well tested and tried scientific theory. It is solid.

2) The theory of evolution encompasses a lot of areas. It is a very wide subject that goes around- Anatomy, psychology, sociology, paleontology and so many areas of "organic" science. It explains one million things about life but there are also a million things about life that we do not understand. Picking an issue and claiming that evolution can not explain it does not mean that the theory is false or flawed. Information and research about evolution keeps on growing and making new advances.

3) The mammary gland puzzle and other points raised would still be explained by evolution in the long run. This just like how evolution was before it could explain some areas of genetics.





Directly addressing Deepsight's folly on the mammary gland puzzle and evolution of sexual reproduction

1) Mammary Glands
-First of all, there are already theories on how mammary glands evolved and lactation based on the comparison of living mammals
-Second of all, mammary glands do not fossilize well and so, it makes finding out the evolutionary process of them difficult. I dont know whether you want scientists to do some kind of magic to explain them
-thirdly, the fact remains that human and animals evolved despite the lack of fossil evidence and consensus on the evolution of the mammary glands


2) Sexual reproduction
-As with the mammary glands, there are existing theories on the evolution of sexual reproduction.



The things that pains me most is the ignorance shown by Deepsight and his bunch of anti-intellectual theists. They expect science to explain everything and when it doesnt, it is flawed.

Did Deepsight read in the articles that since the evolution of mammary glands and sexual reproduction, evolution is flawed? No, he didnt read that but he went on to claim some victory over evolution!

Guess what Deepsight? The evolution of the human brain is also not easily explainable. There are theories but no consensus. We dnt know everything about the brain. This doesnt mean that evolution is flawed. It only means that scientists are still researching and there is always more iinformation to be added to the subject of evolution.



[size=18pt]In summary, Deepsight can not tell the difference between the theory of evolution and evolution as a subject. The theory of evolution is solid and centered on the change of organisms. Evolution as a subject can be used to explain social behaviours, changes in body parts, psychology and even some areas in genetics. [/size]

Uyi Iredia:

How does the human brain result in consciousness ?

Logicboy03:
Why do these anti-evolutionists lie so much? You painstakingly read the thread and missed my reply to the failed op.

Or what now? You will claim that my reply didnt address the op?

Logicboy03: People like Deepsight are very dangerous to humanity- Spreading misinformation packaged with big words.

Logicboy03:
Deepsight is claiming that the theory of evolution is flawed because it cant fully explain the evolution of sexual reproduction and mammary glands.

Logicboy03:
First and foremost, when the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin, the theory couldnt explain many aspects of Genetics which it can do now. Evolution at Darwin's could not explain the evolution of morality and animal behaviour/psychology (but evolution explains it now).

Logicboy03:
The point here is threefold;

1) The theory of evolution is centered on the change in the characteristics of living organisms over successive generations- and in that sense evolution is a well tested and tried scientific theory. It is solid.

Logicboy03:
2) The theory of evolution encompasses a lot of areas. It is a very wide subject that goes around- Anatomy, psychology, sociology, paleontology and so many areas of "organic" science. It explains one million things about life but there are also a million things about life that we do not understand. Picking an issue and claiming that evolution can not explain it does not mean that the theory is false or flawed. Information and research about evolution keeps on growing and making new advances.

Logicboy03:
3) The mammary gland puzzle and other points raised would still be explained by evolution in the long run. This just like how evolution was before it could explain some areas of genetics.

Logicboy03:
Directly addressing Deepsight's folly on the mammary gland puzzle and evolution of sexual reproduction

1) Mammary Glands
-First of all, there are already theories on how mammary glands evolved and lactation based on the comparison of living mammals
-Second of all, mammary glands do not fossilize well and so, it makes finding out the evolutionary process of them difficult. I dont know whether you want scientists to do some kind of magic to explain them
-thirdly, the fact remains that human and animals evolved despite the lack of fossil evidence and consensus on the evolution of the mammary glands

Logicboy03:
2) Sexual reproduction
-As with the mammary glands, there are existing theories on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

Logicboy03:
The things that pains me most is the ignorance shown by Deepsight and his bunch of anti-intellectual theists. They expect science to explain everything and when it doesnt, it is flawed.

Logicboy03:
Did Deepsight read in the articles that since the evolution of mammary glands and sexual reproduction, evolution is flawed? No, he didnt read that but he went on to claim some victory over evolution!

Logicboy03:
Guess what Deepsight? The evolution of the human brain is also not easily explainable. There are theories but no consensus. We dnt know everything about the brain. This doesnt mean that evolution is flawed. It only means that scientists are still researching and there is always more iinformation to be added to the subject of evolution.

Logicboy03:
[size=18pt]In summary, Deepsight can not tell the difference between the theory of evolution and evolution as a subject. The theory of evolution is solid and centered on the change of organisms. Evolution as a subject can be used to explain social behaviours, changes in body parts, psychology and even some areas in genetics. [/size]

Logicboy03:

Wow. Another anti-evolutionist caught lying and double-speaking!

Logicboy03:
First, he now says that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution but somehow it is a problem for evolution.

Logicboy03:
Animals evolved. There is common descent whether or not abiogenesis is true or false. I wonder what point this guy is trying to make.

Logicboy03:
Why do poeople just lie against evolution?

davidylan:

Deepsight's original post was a DETAILED, FACT-BASED analysis of a gaping hole in evolutionary theory... he also followed up with 12 key questions that the ToE needed to answer... how did your response address ANY of the issues raised?



Merely an unwarranted ad hominem. How did this address the OP?



Claim - state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.


Deepsight did not make a "claim" since he provided scientific evidence (there are at least 3 separate links provided) to back up his assertions. So to assert that his points are mere "claims" is dishonesty. Again, how have this addressed the OP?



This type of fallacy is called "ignoratio elenchi"... just because the ToE has been shown to explain other aspects of genetics does not necessarily mean that it must also explain every aspect of genetics, even though there is no proof. Again, how was this able to address the OP?



Circular reasoning. How has this addressed the OP?



Circular reasoning. All you have done is tell us that the ToE encompasses a broad range of issues... how has this addressed the OP?



It will be "addressed in the long run" means? How has this addressed the specific issues raised by the OP?



1. Line 7 of the 1st post on this thread states thus - "There are many theories on how mammary glands evolved...". Essentially you have simply restated the OP's point without really saying anything new.

2. Line 8 of the 1st post on this thread states thus - "Since mammary glands do not fossilize well, supporting such theories with fossil evidence is difficult...". Again you have simply copied and pasted the exact same premise that the OP made clear without adding any new information of your own.

3. Mind projection fallacy. Your claim that it is a fact that humans and animals evolved DESPITE a lack of fossil evidence and CONSENSUS on the evolution of the mammary glands is false as this "fact" has not been conclusively established in scientific literature.

How did the above points address anything the OP said? All i have seen above is irrelevant hand waving.



You have neither provided these theories nor given us your own thoughts as to how they disprove the OP's points. Again no attempt to address the OP outside of empty hand wringing.



You have accused Deepsight of "ignorance" yet provided ZERO to show up this alleged ignorance.



Other than desperate hand waving, how does this address the OP's point?



Appeal to authority. How did this address anything the OP raised?



You have simply recycled your initial pointless canard. Other than unnecessary shouting, how have you addressed the OP?