Kay 17:

"Who is behind it" one of the most biased questions possible.

Organisms are said to be primed with the instinct to survive, that instinct coupled with the environment (includes predators and landscape) form a mechanism through which the fittest survive.

The fittest organisms beat poorer ones in this grand competition, to battle for scarce resources and reproduce. Every biological advantage possible is used, and mutation provides this ammunition.

Who said anything about chance :/

No no no no.

Lives forms competed for Gender, male and female

@deepsight ....please i will like to know if your degree is in the sciences or not? The scientific process may be strange to the non-scientific mind .

The fact that lacunae exist in theories does not detract from the power of those theories. And science is not a religion ....it is only common sense which the black man has chosen to renounce.

Did you know that Charles Darwin was planning to go into the priesthood? Are you aware that Wallace, one of the earlier workers on inheritance was an anglican priest?

My point is that am not sure you qualify to delve into those depths you are delving into.

Oduduwaboy: @deepsight ....please i will like to know if your degree is in the sciences or not? The scientific process may be strange to the non-scientific mind .

The fact that lacunae exist in theories does not detract from the power of those theories. And science is not a religion ....it is only common sense which the black man has chosen to renounce.

Did you know that Charles Darwin was planning to go into the priesthood? Are you aware that Wallace, one of the earlier workers on inheritance was an anglican priest?

My point is that am not sure you qualify to delve into those depths you are delving into.

THIS is nonsense. You can actually ignore my posts and read the work of scientists which I posted. I hope you understand that your post renders that non-scientists cannot and should not have an opinion on any scientific matter. You know, all learning is nothing but an application of logic and as such, any keen and studious person can discuss matters outside his specific academic training, so long as he applies himself to reading and understanding. As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer by training, but I know many non-lawyers who have and who do argue very soundly on legal issues just by the application of simple logic - because at the end of the day - legal issues are simply based on logic. Same with science.

*In MFM booming voice* - "I hereby banish every spirit of olodoishness posessing you and following you into 2014!!!"

AMEN!

Double Post

davidylan:
What sort of advantage?

I posted an excerpt from a deepsight link, if you don't mind go through them.

@truthlight your posts are misconceived

Deep Sight:
THIS is nonsense. You can actually ignore my posts and read the work of scientists which I posted. I hope you understand that your post renders that non-scientists cannot and should not have an opinion on any scientific matter. You know, all learning is nothing but an application of logic and as such, any keen and studious person can discuss matters outside his specific academic training, so long as he applies himself to reading and understanding. As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer by training, but I know many non-lawyers who have and who do argue very soundly on legal issues just by the application of simple logic - because at the end of the day - legal issues are simply based on logic. Same with science.
*In MFM booming voice* - "I hereby banish every spirit of olodoishness posessing you and following you into 2014!!!"
AMEN!

No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

wiegraf:

No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

Yawn. Delete all your opinions on subjects you don't have a degree in, then.

Happy new year.

Let's start afresh, you annoying fella.

wiegraf:

No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

Dont discuss anything on religion until you get a doctorate on it. Even if you do, still dont talk cos you may as well be like Popper.

If you think his posers make no sense or that you can prove the evolution of s.exes, then do it and show Deep that he is wrong. after all, it was people who rose up to show Popper how wrong he was, am I right?

You ve made no point.

Deep Sight:
Yawn. Delete all your opinions on subjects you don't have a degree in, then.
Happy new year.
Let's start afresh, you annoying fella.

And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions. So when the pros come out and say they will find solutions (or even that they've found them already), I'd be more inclined to take their word for it over yours.

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about. And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'. It would seem division of labor is advantageous in many situations out in the wild, as expected...

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And btw, I speak not of opinions per se, I speak mostly of facts...

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

wiegraf:

And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions. So when the pros come out and say they will find solutions (or even that they've found them already), I'd be more inclined to take their word for it over yours.

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about. And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'. It would seem division of labor is advantageous in many situations out in the wild, as expected...

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And btw, I speak not of opinions per se, I speak mostly of facts...

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

And yet neither you nor him can extract the points from my link and match them as answers for any of my posers? You think I didn't read them before posting them? Lol, comedians. You simply don't have the brain cells required for this task. You didnt have them in 2013 and clearly, so far, you don't have them in 2014.

Anyway, let me stop. I have made new year resolutions. I have repented of my terrible ways.

May God be with you.

Ege te absolvo.

wiegraf:

And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions. So when the pros come out and say they will find solutions (or even that they've found them already), I'd be more inclined to take their word for it over yours.

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about. And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'. It would seem division of labor is advantageous in many situations out in the wild, as expected...

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And btw, I speak not of opinions per se, I speak mostly of facts...

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

The above in highlights is a tired escapist trope that should be retired in 2014. Just because you cant answer a question does not mean the person asking has no idea what they are talking about.

wiegraf:

No, this is nonsense. People spend years training for these, and you think you're immediately as qualified as they are? I know various fats can clog up arteries and cause a heart attack, I've read quite a few articles on the procedure, now allow me to perform hearts surgery on you. Am I not qualified enough?

Good thing with science, anyone can confirm any theory provided you put in the effort, but the investment required clearly isn't always as simple just reading a few articles. It is relative. Many would read articles about say QM or GR for months and still not grasp even their most basic premises. Evolution is built around simple principles, but the details aren't always as simple as that, obviously. Even people regarded as rather intelligent, eg Popper, think evolution unscientific until they actually pore through the details.

Programming likely has even more self taught professionals than law, I'm more or else self-taught myself, but don't pretend these situations are as black and white as you portray it. While I might know the concepts of how so and so language may work, I certainly cannot know the details without (sometimes considerable) investment. You think you can declare their efforts futile just because you've read a few articles? You already claim there is no 'impetus' for generating gender despite reading the same article @kay did, so quite clearly, you're already lost.

Quite silly. Of course i may not be qualified to perform open heart surgery based on my rudimentary knowledge of how fats clog arteries (thus causing strokes or heart attacks) but that knowledge is good enough for me to question anyone blabbing incoherently about how water may cause the same effect.

Chrisbenogor:
Sighs,
You know I stopped commenting often because I find that people tend to post to score brownie points instead of actually having interesting conversations. TBH I really do not know much about the ToE I use these threads to try and learn, but when I find you guys squabbling instead of having intelligent discussions its a great turn off.

I also struggle to see how this is a religious issue, the spin this thread has taken IMO is more scientific than religious, I think this thread misses a vital link of how does this all connect to religion? As a scientifc discourse it does sure make for interesting discussion. It seriously however needs that religious bench marking if it is to remain here.

DS,
Is this the evolution of sexes as a scientific discussion? If it is as connected to religion could you kindly make that connection clearer? Because I am struggling hard to see the need for all the e-ink wasted in all these pages. Science has a billion and one aspects of this planet it has not yet fully explained, many aspects it is still working on, many aspects that have been refined day in and out. Sometimes I wonder what your real aim is, I wonder what you are suggesting we do in the face that we have challenges in responding to aspects that our theory cannot explain (if that's really the case).

You have said continuously that you accept parts of the theory and you feel the others are suspect, no problem. Is it possible for you using the scientific method to first show why it is wrong, and then what you think is correct. I think for the best part you are wary of going down the path of proposing what you think is the answer.




PS:
Is it ever possible to have a discussion here? Instead of accusations and counter accusations? I guess not. sighs
Happy new year Sir.

I'm confused. Evolution has been touted by your ilk as the proof that the creation story, as described in the bible, is nothing but a false myth. So why do you think a discussion on evolution has nothing to do with religion? Methinks the problem with you is simple... many of you are completely unable to discuss the scientific underpinnings of your much vaunted alternative theories to the faith-based claims... so you tend to use "well tell us how you think God did it then" as an excuse. Once you are unable to bellyache about the bible all day, many of you are unable to make any meaningful contribution to threads here.

@davidlyan, although I strongly believe the Creation Story was originally intended as a myth, yet with religious fervour conflicts with scientific views on the same questions.

1. Origin of man

2. The origin of the Universe

Herein Science undermines Christianity and its "truths"

@ds, I'll have to keep this short (by my standards), as spambot does not like your quotes (understandably)

Again, you clearly demonstrate you do NOT know what you're on about or are being deliberately obtuse, and now I have to play captain obvious to those with the right type of brain cells. Of course your questions (from ~5 onwards, and btw, you could reduce that to 2-3 questions rather than that treatise on nitpicking, designed to appear as if there's this nice long list of issues with evolution...really..) are related to advantages, as the answer those 'posers' is; because they were advantages.

Read the link you yourself posted which kay of the unbelievable patience quoted. And to add to that, I've already asked why is the clit outside? Perhaps because it's more or else a variant of a pipi (not truly vestigial as it still serves a purpose)? And of course us males armed with nipples that are useless? If you're confused, and you are, the default state is likely asexual. Then, with time, like I stated earlier; division of labor.

And also, what's the first objection on most people's lips to inces.t? Hereditary diseases due to smaller gene pools. See where that is headed?

etc etc

Gender was an advantage, and mutations that are advantages are likely to become traits. Evolution is simply that. No long story and non of your obfuscation. No purpose of any sort whatsoever is required. It's inevitable that changes will occur, and it's inevitable that the forces of nature will screen them.

Simple logic.....

Note how gender wouldn't be an advantage to our species today, as we're intelligent beings and can therefore work around it. Unlike nature, which doesn't give a $hit and doesn't plan, see?

David, when did you start replying me? I thought you were one of those that promised to never address me as well? This new year sef

davidylan:

The above in highlights is a tired escapist trope that should be retired in 2014. Just because you cant answer a question does not mean the person asking has no idea what they are talking about.

And......so?

davidylan:
Quite silly. Of course i may not be qualified to perform open heart surgery based on my rudimentary knowledge of how fats clog arteries (thus causing strokes or heart attacks) but that knowledge is good enough for me to question anyone blabbing incoherently about how water may cause the same effect.

Good, then you understand why I have issues with you and ds' folly, no?

^^ and in furtherance of wiegraf's post above

Poser 1 and 2 are irrelevant and moot in respect to the theory of evolution. It is similar to approaching a lawyer for a medical surgery.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! ! ! Lol! What gibberish!

Abeg make I do my morning briefing, I will be back to attend to the perennially f.oolish.

davidylan:

I'm confused. Evolution has been touted by your ilk as the proof that the creation story, as described in the bible, is nothing but a false myth. So why do you think a discussion on evolution has nothing to do with religion? Methinks the problem with you is simple... many of you are completely unable to discuss the scientific underpinnings of your much vaunted alternative theories to the faith-based claims... so you tend to use "well tell us how you think God did it then" as an excuse. Once you are unable to bellyache about the bible all day, many of you are unable to make any meaningful contribution to threads here.

David,
The creation story as described in the Bible is a myth.

Chrisbenogor:
David,
The creation story as described in the Bible is a myth.

prove it.

I might as well say:
The change of kind speculation described by the evolutionists is a myth, and an idiotic one at that, that only imaginative primary school children would tend to fancy and peddle.

wiegraf_folles: @ds, I'll have to keep this short (by my standards), as spambot does not like your quotes (understandably)

Again, you clearly demonstrate you do NOT know what you're on about or are being deliberately obtuse, and now I have to play captain obvious to those with the right type of brain cells. Of course your questions (from ~5 onwards, and btw, you could reduce that to 2-3 questions rather than that treatise on nitpicking, designed to appear as if there's this nice long list of issues with evolution...really..) are related to advantages, as the answer those 'posers' is; because they were advantages.

How does this answer address Poser 1 & 2 on why living organisms are self-replicating in the first place? Not to bother even moving on to the other posers, this assumption cannot scale even the first two posers alone.

Here, to Plaetton - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction/2#20539793

wiegraf:

And where did I say your opinions are useless, or at least completely so? (to me they are, but that's besides the point, see?) I am saying they are definitely NOT as valuable as informed opinions.

Let us be clear and honest. Straight up answers to these will do:

1. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" so far have no tested, proven or confirmed answer to these posers?

2. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" have many different conflicting suggestions as their possible answers to the posers?

3. Is it not true that there is no proof for any of the different suggestions by "informed opinions" so far?

4. Is it not true that all the suggestions made by the "informed opinions" on the posers are entirely speculations?

5. Is this - - - > http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

- - - written by two PHD (Microbiology & Neurobiology) Scientists: supporting my views and my contentions, not also an "informed opinion?"

O, and in answering that: the resume of the writers of that opinion, which supports my contentions wholly:

Brad Harrub is a graduate of Kentucky Wesleyan College, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who’s Who Among Scientists and Researchers. He was an invited speaker to the 2003 International Conference on Creationism. He currently serves as the Director of Scientific Information at Apologetics Press, and as associate editor of Reason & Revelation.

Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he taught for several years. While at Texas A&M, he served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. Currently, Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Apologetics Press and editor of Reason & Revelation.

So is what they wrote an informed opinion or not? Hmmmmm? Or are they disqualified from having "informed opinions" by dint of their religion perhaps? Hmmmmm?

Doesn't mean they can't be challenged, doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but you definitely don't know what you're on about.

I definitely don't know what I am on about - because I am not a scientist? - - -> Even when the work of PHD Scientists and professors supports my contentions? Do they also "not know what they are on about?" Especially in the face of the fact that there is no confirmed or tested answer to the posers even among the scientific elite? And against the fact that only speculations are available even among the scientific elite?

And again, you proved that when you claimed there was no 'impetus' for the development of se.xes even after reading an article you yourself recommended to kay which has several good ones. In fact, from that article, it would seem that given the right conditions, it is not a question of 'will' they develop, it's one of 'when'.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

You're at best a dilettante. Nothing wrong with that, in fact curiosity should always encouraged (so long as it doesn't control your life ie), but you are definitely not as informed as a professional who's spent years dealing with these complexities, let alone a whole community of these folk that have been providing successful solutions for some time now. Division of labor, and they are the pros.

And what do the pros say on this matter? Hmmmmm?

As for the new year, my resolution is to graduate from annoying to full a.rse, so f you. But happy new year.

You can graduate to whatever you please: I certainly will be abandoning worthless brick-battings such as this one in favor of more useful and productive discussions on the improvement and spiritual growth of the inner man (don't worry about that; since we know, that for you, no such thing as an "inner man" exists: infact, it is f.oolishness, no?)

Joshthefirst: prove it.

I might as well say:
The change of kind speculation described by the evolutionists is a myth, and an idiotic one at that, that only imaginative primary school children would tend to fancy and peddle.

We would not want to derail this thread now and deny these esteemed Nairaland professors their space, do you not just feel good when you see people arguing over observations, facts, scientific research? I am sure the pages of Nairaland would not be enough for you to explain how clay was moulded or how clay allegorically means something else or how crawling by the serpent really meant the slow moving motion of a rolls royce phantom. . Arguing over the mechanisms of evolution does not throw the theory out of the window just yet.
As for your creation story, its a myth.......deal with it

Kay 17: @davidlyan, although I strongly believe the Creation Story was originally intended as a myth, yet with religious fervour conflicts with scientific views on the same questions.

1. Origin of man

2. The origin of the Universe

Herein Science undermines Christianity and its "truths"

and this addresses the OP how again?

Chrisbenogor:
David,
The creation story as described in the Bible is a myth.

That is not the issue of the thread. Please address the OP (we are already on the 8th page!) and stop trying too hard with the irrelevant diversionary tactics.

wiegraf_folles: David, when did you start replying me? I thought you were one of those that promised to never address me as well? This new year sef



And......so?



Good, then you understand why I have issues with you and ds' folly, no?

Of course i understand... you have no answers to the OP.

davidylan:

and this addresses the OP how again?

It was in reply to your post.

Kay 17:

It was in reply to your post.

the point of my post was to highlight the hypocrisy that is prevalent in many of you atheists here. If the thread was about "christian myths", you would all be swarming here driving thread pages to 100 in less than 2 days. Now that it is about YOU explaining some of the discrepancies in the ToE, all of a sudden you all hide, make snide remarks and try desperately to push the subject back to "christian myths"?

^^
Because it seems there is a direct competition between ToE and Christian Creationism. Although ToE is of natural metholdogy, I don't think atheists should be burdened with explaining its fine details.

Also, deepsight is staging an attack on the credibility of ToE on an area that has nothing to do with ToE. Everyone is an interested party.

Kay 17: ^^
Because it seems there is a direct competition between ToE and Christian Creationism. Although ToE is of natural metholdogy, I don't think atheists should be burdened with explaining its fine details.

Atheists who dogmatically accept the theory hook, line and sinker and insist that all answers are to be found in it's principles - including answers that have yet to be found there - must indeed be tasked to explain sore points that indicate the reverse.

Also, deepsight is staging an attack on the credibility of ToE on an area that has nothing to do with ToE.

Well if you say that the development of sexes and sexxual reproduction has nothing to do with the ToE, then that is a wholesale concession to my point. Thank you.