AlfaSeltzer:


And that seagull's name was Adam Seagull. The father of all seagulls.

And if I predict the name of the first woman Seagull correctly, you'll call me a Paleontologist. Will you? I don't trust you anyway.

Such a bright piece. I've always wonder, this is the farthest point in the history of history in cosmic age. And the tenet of evolution is, change is constant. From classical source of evolution, matter is either evolving or disintegrating. Centuries gone by, has evolution shy away from nature? Not to worry, evolution has gone off nature and is now on textbook, fossils & minds, aha.

sinequanon:

The lay people, who do not understand the issue say this. The scientists who do understand the issue, don't say this, but keep a hypocritical silence.
The formal position is this: You don't NEED to invoke an intelligent designer in order to form a working hypothesis for diversity of life.
Atheists extend this to argue that, [size=18pt]IF[/size] there is no further insight by invoking an intelligent designer and the designer has no difference in effect, then we can ignore the existence of the intelligent designer, who is as good as non-existent. However, they fudge the IF, and pretend the ToE is a fact.
Scientists are nowhere near demonstrating that you don't need an intelligent designer. Most of their efforts are falsehoods, aimed at heading off biblical explanations.
To demonstrate that an intelligent designer is not required, it is not good enough to demonstrate that creatures evolve. You have to demonstrate that a random molecular model would achieve the evolution in the estimated timescales. Throwing large numbers around, like "we have billions of years to play with" is not proof. You have to measure that up quantitatively against what has been achieved and the maximum rate at which random mutation and natural selection can proceed.

Such a bright piece. I've always wonder, this is the farthest point in the history of history in cosmic age. And the tenet of evolution is, change is constant. From classical source of evolution, matter is either evolving or disintegrating. Centuries gone by, has evolution shy away from nature? Not to worry, evolution has gone off nature and is now on textbook, fossils & minds, aha.

sinequanon:


Seagulls wait for the right conditions to do their dance.

These are the kind of observations that happen around you regularly that can help you assess the Theory of Evolution more critically.

(Wait for some illogical so-and-so to read a conclusion into the OP.)

Google evolution of behaviour.

Nice video about the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8Yy9nyi74

@ Sinequanon.

Err. . . well, how do I put this. . . maybe you should start backwards. Make the point first, then assert the argument that supports it. Such that the point you are driving at is clear. I say this because some of the times I have tried to discuss evolution in the past, the first thing that people like Evil Brain did was to brand me a Christian. Such amazing leaps of joy, no? The man, and his ilk, would not stop to know that I actually believe in Evolution. But as you said, some people have problems distinguishing an argument from the conclusions derived.

Secondly, let it occur to you that so long as you dare to point out ANYTHING in the Theory of Evolution that seems amiss, some of these people will consider you ignorant and uneducated forever. It is, for them - scientific apologists that they claim to be - yet still a cardinal sin to question any aspect of the theory of evolution - or the question whether, by itself, it may account for life as we know it. Notwithstanding the fact that questioning theories is the bedrock of science.

Finally, evaluate carefully in your mind whether the excercise you are embarking on is a worthwhile use of your time and intellectual energies. People will be people. The religious will be religious. The irreligious will be irreligious. The logical will be logical and the illogical will be illogical. One fine day some logical persons will see logic in the illogic of the supposed illogical people, and some illogical people will see logic in the logic of the logical.

This will happen not by any length of arguments, or any erudition, or any extent of the articulate quality of one's treatise - but simply by what people experience as they go along in life.

It will be extremely hard to convince me that I did not have a dream last night about one matter or the other. It may be true that I had the dream. However I will never be able to prove anything about the dream to you. It is not a matter for argument.

It is a matter for experience.

In summary, what am I saying? If you wish to argue these things, carry on - it can be an enjoyable pastime. Do, for the sake of those who will misunderstand your perspective, state that perspective before debating its merits. However consider closely whether you should bother at all.

Life is a journey that metes out its lessons gradually to all we journeying students.

If there are people who believe that life is a meaningless accident in a meaningless universe, that's up to them. There is something that Jayriginal says that I like: "It is what it is", regardless of any amount of arguments. In other words, if God exists, arguments here will not wish God out of existence. If God does not exist, arguments here cannot wish God into existence. We will just argue.

The great and unfathomable reality out there will remain what it is. Forever beyond we minuscule presumptuous creatures.

Peace.

^^^black man's stuppidity.

Next, you'll be forcing your children to believe in your dreams because they can't prove you didn't have it. And you make laws based on that dream. Then you tell them not to discuss it because it serves no purpose.

AlfaSeltzer:
^^^black man's stuppidity.

Don't worry, I love you too.

DeepSight:


Don't worry, I love you too.

I know. You don't have any other choice. Do you?

AlfaSeltzer:
^^^black man's stuppidity.

Next, you'll be forcing your children to believe in your dreams because they can't prove you didn't have it. And you make laws based on that dream. Then you tell them not to discuss it because it serves no purpose.

How do you know I plan to have children?
Presumptions, you see?

Breathe deeply and relax my friend. Nothing here is that serious.

DeepSight:

@ Sinequanon.

Err. . . well, how do I put this. . . maybe you should start backwards. Make the point first, then assert the argument that supports it. Such that the point you are driving at is clear. I say this because some of the times I have tried to discuss evolution in the past, the first thing that people like Evil Brain did was to brand me a Christian. Such amazing leaps of joy, no? The man, and his ilk, would not stop to know that I actually believe in Evolution. But as you said, some people have problems distinguishing an argument from the conclusions derived...

...etc. etc. spot on with the rest of your post, imo.

I am not trying to convince Evil Brain and his ilk.

I am hoping intelligent folk join in and contribute intelligent opinions and show respect for other intelligent opinions. Who cares about Evil Brain, and kids, like paetton?

All opinions are fine, imo, but brainwashed people with half-baked ideas who take it upon themselves to "educate" people, should expect to get crushed under the weight of their own stupidity and hypocrisy.

But I'd rather have a respectful discussion with intelligent folk, whether or not we agree.

AnalogTechno:


Google evolution of behaviour.

Nice video about the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8Yy9nyi74

Sorry. You are going to have to explain what you think is intelligent in this video, because there is no way I will sit through an hour of this man's shortsightedness.

sinequanon:


there is no way I will sit through an hour of this man's shortsightedness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljv1fO4qrIw

sinequanon:

Sorry. You are going to have to explain what you think is intelligent in this video, because there is no way I will sit through an hour of this man's shortsightedness.

tl;dw: An animal's behaviour is just another manifestation of its phenotype as ultimately determined by its genes. Behaviour evolves just like every other aspect of living things and that includes human behaviour. Evolutionary psychology is a thing.

That shortsighted person you don't have time for happens to be one of the originators of and formost experts on the subject. His books The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are what made him one of the most respected biologists currently living. You should try reading one or both of them you want to have your mind blown. Don't worry, they were written long before he made a hobby out of hurting religious people's feelings.

Also, you're not going to learn much with that "I won't sit through this shortsightedness" attitude. You should never dismiss an idea without first understanding it and and giving it a fair chance to convince you. All great truths started as fringe ideas. Lord knows how much time I've spent reading and listening to creationists, Christian and Muslim apologists, fringe political theorists ISIS supporters and other crackpots looking for kernels of truth.

I never argue against an ideology until I have at least a fair understanding of it. I guess that's the difference between us. Because you clearly don't understand evolution and are unwilling to try.

EvilBrain1:
snip

This is the poster who came up with the most ridiculous contribution I have encountered on Nairaland, and he is back to "educate" us further, LOL!

He is educating us all on who Richard Dawkins is, because none of us know who he is (only EvilBrain1), or his theory of memes and other stupidity that models people as automatons with only an illusion of choice.

And this video is the first one any of us have come across, so EvilBrain is here to educate us on who Dawkins "happens to be" and what books he has written. What would we do without EvilBrain to explain all this to us.

The reason I will not waste time on this Dawkins video is precisely because I have seen him lecture, seen him debate, heard his hypotheses, etc. He is not a foremost biologist. He is famous for popularizing genetics and talking about spaghetti monsters and flying teapots. His popular books made him famous, not his scholarship. He is an intellectual lightweight. Time and again I have seen him blown away, with his audience having more intellectual capacity than he has. He has spawned a mass of vocal, but dim, followers who regurgitate science at the most superficial level. That is his main legacy. Many of his peers have called him an embarrassment.

How exactly is that evolution?

^^^
The great folly of people arguing blindly against something they don't understand.
And dubbs himself intelligent.

I personally don't know all the nittt gritty of how every species evolved ever single trait. And I don't ever need to, considering that it is not my career.
But I do understand the fundamental ideas.

This fellow has never made an intelligent argument for anything here on this forum.

At least he has confessed that his objective is to deride people of no god-faith.
And dubbs himself intelligent.

sinequanon:


This is the poster who came up with the most ridiculous contribution I have encountered on Nairaland, and he is back to "educate" us further, LOL!

He is educating us all on who Richard Dawkins is, because none of us know who he is (only EvilBrain1), or his theory of memes and other stupidity that models people as automatons with only an illusion of choice.

And this video is the first one any of us have come across, so EvilBrain is here to educate us on who Dawkins "happens to be" and what books he has written. What would we do without EvilBrain to explain all this to us.

The reason I will not waste time on this Dawkins video is precisely because I have seen him lecture, seen him debate, heard his hypotheses, etc. He is not a foremost biologist. He is famous for popularizing genetics and talking about spaghetti monsters and flying teapots. His popular books made him famous, not his scholarship. He is an intellectual lightweight. Time and again I have seen him blown away, with his audience having more intellectual capacity than he has. He has spawned a mass of vocal, but dim, followers who regurgitate science at the most superficial level. That is his main legacy. Many of his peers have called him an embarrassment.

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Before, you attacked me for mentioning Jesus and using the term brain touch while completely failing to address the plain logic in my first post. Now you're abusing me for telling you who Dawkins is while ignoring the fact that the video you don't have time to watch has destroyed your core thesis within its first 7 minutes.

Your insults and ad hominems have failed to mask your willful ignorance and inability to grasp core concepts. But I guess I'm just wasting my time posting this since you're only going to respond by insulting me again like a mindless clockwork mechanism.

This whole discussion is just flying over your head.

plaetton:
^^^
The great folly of people arguing blindly against something they don't understand.
And dubbs himself intelligent.

I personally don't know all the nittt gritty of how every species evolved ever single trait. And I don't ever need to, considering that it is not my career.
But I do understand the fundamental ideas.

This fellow has never made an intelligent argument for anything here on this forum.

At least he has confessed that his objective
is to deride people of no god-faith.
And dubbs himself intelligent.

What are you saying?

Is your post affirmative or negatory?

tpia5:



What are you saying?

Is your post affirmative or negatory?

I meant to say in a discussion or debate, one is supposed to take a position , and then make a coherent and intelligent argument for that position, or conversely, or can dismantle an opponents argument by suggesting a more reasonable and plausible argument.
In this way, everyone gets to learn something.

But coming out always to criticize terminologies and nomenclatures while tactfully avoiding a meaningful and sincere contributions to the topic is disingenuous, to say the least.

In other words, simple english is not your forte.

DeepSight:


Don't worry, I love you too.

I never heard from you again. Why?

^^^ O you will... hopefully today... been busy, my apologies. I hope you are well.

EvilBrain1:


What the hell is wrong with you people? How many times does someone have to explain natural selection to you before you get it? Why can't you read a book or watch a YouTube video and comprehend like a normal person? I'm tired of repeating this stuff! What the hell!

Look, all living things reproduce. All living things have offspring that are similar to their parents but different in tiny ways that makes each individual unique. Some of those differences favour survival, some make no difference, and some are disadvantages. All living things have more offspring than the environment can support meaning that many or most will die off before adulthood and they all have to compete to survive. Nature selects those who have traits that favour survival and kills off those who don't. Therefore any population of living things will gradually slowly change in appearance, physiology and behaviour as nature and death molds them to fit their environment.

Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of brain touch that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground for no good reason. Somehow, food inexplicably kept coming out of the earth and the seagull ate very well. Because of its constant good diet the seagull grew big and strong and had plenty of seagull babies many of whom also inherited the brain touch. The seagull's babies survived more than those of his mates because of the highly proteinaceous food he kept bringing home. Soon there were plenty of young brain touched seagulls running along the ground and eating the food that strangely kept coming out. The next time there was a drought, many seagulls starved and died but the brain touched seagull's offspring flourished, outcompeted the others and became dominant. Meanwhile even among the brain touched seagulls, some ran in subtly different ways that brought out more or less food. Those whose running style brought out more food out competed those whose brought out less and became dominant. And so, over a long period of time, nature and death continued to shape the seagull population until we ended up with a bunch of birds all of whom can tapdance expertly to attract worms. And that's when some stupìd Christians showed up and claimed it was because of Jesus. It wasn't because of Jesus.

Please note that there is no intelligence or planning involved here. The seagulls have no clue what they are doing, they're just following instincts they were born with. The fact that they exist is solely due to their ancestors having survived and passed on those traits. Also nature doesn't know or care what is happening because it is not intelligent or conscious. Nature is not trying to evolve better seagulls. Its just that the nature of living things and the laws of the universe mean that evolution and increasing complexity are inevitable.

Understand?

Storytelling based on wishful thinking.

UyiIredia:


Storytelling based on wishful thinking.

The dude is now pretending that he was using humour.

He was clearly being serious. In retrospect, he now realizes how utterly daft his explanation is.

But it was accepted by davien, plaetton and Dapo777, who then tried to cover up their embarrassing gullibility by pretending that it was all a bit of a joke.

It is hypocrisy like this that is a debate killer. I suppose they felt they had no choice after they'd exposed their total lack of critical faculty.

They preferred to look like hypocrites than like fools, and ended up looking like both!

sinequanon:

The dude is now pretending that he was using humour.
He was clearly being serious. In retrospect, he now realizes how utterly daft his explanation is.
But it was accepted by davien, plaetton and Dapo777, who then tried to cover up their embarrassing gullibility by pretending that it was all a bit of a joke.
It is hypocrisy like this that is a debate killer. I suppose they felt they had no choice after they'd exposed their total lack of critical faculty.
They preferred to look like hypocrites than like fools, and ended up looking like both!

Maybe I shouldn't be the one pointing this out to you, but I think you have some issues man

Raging and obfuscating even more than Uyi, who readily admits he obfuscates on purpose. lol

Goot times

wiegraf:


Maybe I shouldn't be the one pointing this out to you, but I think you have some issues man

Raging and obfuscating even more than Uyi, who readily admits he obfuscates on purpose. lol

Goot times

Anybody can read the thread and see what happened.

wiegraf:
Actually, op, I do think you're making a whole lot of sense here. You really should consider writing a paper. A paper in which you explain how the seagulls evolved enough intelligence to figure out how to lure out earthworms [s](despite the fact they don't show that sort of intelligence in just about every other sphere of their lives)[/s], rather than the nonsense @evilbrain posted earlier.

EDIT: By the way, have you ever wondered why some dog breeds will chase anything that moves whilst others don't give a $hit? I sense a nobel prize in there somewhere as well. We just need to "put our minds together", as they say.

I think you added the bit in bold, later. At least you were honest enough to finally admit that evilbrain posted nonsense. Or are you one of the hypocrites who is pretending that it was "deliberate" nonsense?

And I noticed you belatedly crossed out your key objection. Why don't you think before you type? Then you don't end up hypocritically trying to defend rubbish. At least you learned about something here -- avian intelligence.

The fact that you wrote "evolved" in italics shows that you made the same stupid mistake as the rest, in reading your own confusion into the OP. Yes, the intelligence evolved, so what is your point? That wasn't the question.The OP is asking how the dance evolved - not whether evolution happens.

I believe that the evolution of intelligence played a part. Evolution of intelligence is not an issue in this thread, because the behaviour/reward cycle is easily explained.

Evilbrain said that the gulls have no idea what they are doing. Three hypocrites rushed forward to tell us that his explanation was the same as mine./he was joking blah blah blah.

The problem with debating with people like you is that you don't read properly, then you project all your own confusion, but you don't write down your confused assumptions, so we have guess what your confused point is. Then, when you discover it is your own confusion, you either blame the op for "obfuscation"/"being disingenuous" and then you launch into a predictable cycle of hypocrisy, when everything is there in black and white.

Why don't you just stop to read carefully first, and try to come up with a measured response? That would avoid all your embarrassment.

And what is your last point about? Some sort of complex to try to establish an aura of scholarship? Because I don't see any connection between it and the OP.

sinequanon:


The dude is now pretending that he was using humour.

He was clearly being serious. In retrospect, he now realizes how utterly daft his explanation is.

But it was accepted by davien, plaetton and Dapo777, who then tried to cover up their embarrassing gullibility by pretending that it was all a bit of a joke.

It is hypocrisy like this that is a debate killer. I suppose they felt they had no choice after they'd exposed their total lack of critical faculty.

They preferred to look like hypocrites than like fools, and ended up looking like both!

Same recurring problem. If topics or statements are not phrased to your exact likings, then its wrong for everyone.
You are whimsical, narrow minded, deluded with your own vocabulary, and so far, incapable of articulating a coherent argument on your own.
This makes you a coward who is afraid to stick his neck out, and only good at taking sniper shots without engaging in the battle.

Talking about hypocrisy, if you had spent as much time rubbishing the many absurd propositions being hawked hourly by Nairaland religio- tards, then we would at least say that you are neutral and objective observer.

Back to evilbrain's explanations. Now, like I said before, if you were knowledgeable about the theory of evolution, you would have realized that his explanation was a brilliant way to break down and explain a complex set of processes in a way any high school student can understand. I understood this process in exactly similar manner while in high school.

Atheists are not responsible for your educational deficiencies.

Go out and study and learn what you do not understand. Stop depending on atheists to educate you.

See, wiegraf.

That is why I call plaetton a hypocrite.

What you are calling "the rubbish evilbrain wrote", he is calling "brilliant".

Please don't join in the hypocrisy.

sinequanon:
See, wiegraf.

That is why I call plaetton a hypocrite.

What you are calling "the rubbish evilbrain wrote", he is calling "brilliant".

Please don't join in the hypocrisy.

So what you need to know now is how the dance evolved? Not whether evolution/intelligence caused the dance?

Dapo777:


So what you need to know now is how the dance evolved? Not whether evolution/intelligence caused the dance?

Tell me, how could this sentence in the OP...

The question is, using The Theory of Evolution, explain how the seagulls developed this ability.

..be asking IF evolution caused the dance. Are we speaking the same language, here?

The confusion is coming from you. The question is very clear.

And it doesn't rule intelligence in or out, as an agent. Involvement of intelligence does not mean the dance did not evolve (and the intelligence, too).

sinequanon:


I think you added the bit in bold, later. At least you were honest enough to finally admit that evilbrain posted nonsense. Or are you one of the hypocrites who is pretending that it was "deliberate" nonsense?

And I noticed you belatedly crossed out your key objection. Why don't you think before you type? Then you don't end up hypocritically trying to defend rubbish. At least you learned about something here -- avian intelligence.

Hey there. Looks like your sarcasm detector is broken

sinequanon:


The dude is now pretending that he was using humour.

He was clearly being serious. In retrospect, he now realizes how utterly daft his explanation is.

But it was accepted by davien, plaetton and Dapo777, who then tried to cover up their embarrassing gullibility by pretending that it was all a bit of a joke.

It is hypocrisy like this that is a debate killer. I suppose they felt they had no choice after they'd exposed their total lack of critical faculty.

They preferred to look like hypocrites than like fools, and ended up looking like both!

Okay then, I confess. I wasn't using humour. Everything I said was completely serious and boring and straightlaced including the bird babies with brain touch, the tap dancing seagulls and the stupìd Christians who think everything happens because of Jesus.

Now please go through my first post again and tell us how and why the process I described is not a plausible explanation for how the behaviour in question emerged. Please try and focus on the core logic and not irrelevancies like my choice of terminologies. And please be very specific in your criticism. You can get as technical as you like, don't worry. It's obvious that you're far smarter than all of us but we'll use Google to try to keep up you your vast intellect.

Also, its hard for me to ignore the way you continue to dodge the Dawkins video AnalogTechno posted. Like I said before, your core thesis, that the birds somehow know what they are doing, was completely destroyed within the first 7 or 8 minutes. Is it that you can't spare 7 minutes to show that you're not a closed minded intellectual coward?

For such a brilliant mind as your self to be running away from a lightweight like Prof. Dawkins is disappointing.

timmy2409:


Hey there. Looks like your sarcasm detector is broken

Nope. He believed what he wrote, but I can see why you believe no one could be so daft.

As I said on page 1, it was such a daft post, the only explanation seemed to be sarcasm, but if you follow through, you will see he is serious. Don't be fooled by his later climb down.

This is plaetton's response. He called it "common sense" (he has now joined the "sarcasm camp" )

Okay, now that you have explained it in the simplest way that anyone with minimum common sense can understand, do you really think it registered?
Common sense is not as common as it sounds.
(Quote) (Report) 5 Likes (Like) (Share)

More sarcasm?

Here is evilbrain's response before he joined the "sarcasm camp"..

I'm going to have to ask you to go through my post and list, very specifically, all the things I wrote that you found stupìd.

You sound very confident that you can make a fool out of me. Well here I am sticking my chin out. Hit me with your best shot.

*Edited to fix typo
(Quote) (Report) 3 Likes (Like) (Share)

I suppose you think that was more sarcasm, too, LOL.

Dude, it is as I said. His post was sooooo dumb, that all he can now do is claim humour. The point to note is that the dumb explanation fooled plaetton, davien, and a some others!