sinequanon:


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" )

More sarcasm?

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

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!

Evil brain made this point 2 days ago.
Why have you not dismantled it with your own superior argument?

All you can say is that it is dumb?
This is the kind of response we expect and get from nairaland Sunday school graduates, not an intellectual heavyweight like yourself sir.

Step up your game sir. We are sincerely eager to learn something from you.

^^ Come on man, I specifically quoted that section of your text to be clear. THIS was sarcasm.

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.

timmy2409:
^^ Come on man, I specifically quoted that section of your text to be clear. THIS was sarcasm.

One of the features of cognitive dissonance is the ability of one part of the brain to completely block out the other half, triggering a Short or longer term memory loss if the situation requires it.

plaetton:

One of the features of cognitive dissonance is the ability of one part of the brain to completely block out the other half, triggering a Short or longer term memory loss if the situation requires it.

You might be right. This would explain why someone with such a purportedly superior intellect would fail to grasp the blatant sarcasm in wiegraf's post.

plaetton:

One of the features of cognitive dissonance is the ability of one part of the brain to completely block out the other half, triggering a Short or longer term memory loss if the situation requires it.

Not that's not it at all. What's happening is that he's so incredibly brilliant that our feeble minds cannot even begin to comprehend his arguments.

I'm sure if we run his posts through a supercomputer for a few millennia they'll start to make sense.

timmy2409:


You might be right. This would explain why someone with such a purportedly superior intellect would fail to grasp the blatant sarcasm in wiegraf's post.

wiegraf misunderstood the OP, which clearly asks how you would APPLY the theory of evolution. He read it as an attack on ToE.

Then, I am supposed to figure out what his confused reply means, not only because he is addressing the wrong point, but he further twists it, using sarcasm.

Yes, wiegraf was trying to be sarcastic. Evilbrain wasn't, and that is the post we are talking about! Keep up!

Oh, and wiegraf's sarcasm, which was so blatant that nobody except you felt the need to remark because you "got it", was not in the bit he crossed out, or in his criticism of Evilbrain.

sinequanon:


wiegraf misunderstood the OP, which clearly asks how you would APPLY the theory of evolution. He read it as an attack on ToE.

Then, I am supposed to figure out what his confused reply means, not only because he is addressing the wrong point, but he further twists it, using sarcasm.

Yes, wiegraf was trying to be sarcastic. Evilbrain wasn't, and that is the post we are talking about! Keep up!

Oh, and wiegraf's sarcasm, which was so blatant that nobody except you felt the need to remark because you "got it", was not in the bit he crossed out, or in his criticism of Evilbrain.

Okay you win.Can you please dismantle evilbrain's ridiculous argument?

Ranchhoddas:
Okay you win.Can you please dismantle evilbrain's ridiculous argument?

Seconded

Ranchhoddas:
Okay you win.Can you please dismantle evilbrain's ridiculous argument?

I think he is busy with google, and will return when he understands his own argument from google.

Sinequanon I must ask if you are a creationist...because the willfull rejection of anything "random" and "billions of years" with the rejection to define the terms you use reasonates from your posts.

sinequanon:
When it rains, earthworms tend to surface from underground.

Creatures, like seagulls take advantage of this by "running on the spot", their feet mimicking the pitter-patter of rain. This encourages earthworms to the surface, on which they feed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OcJstUfD88

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

More info about "worm charming"...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_charming

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.)

Predators are naturally smart. In my opinion, it can be accounted for intelligence. The seagulls have the ability to manipulate their environment and especially where there are rewards, the trait is useful and valuable enough to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

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

it will be a miracle. . . the day u stop $hììting in your pants.

Ranchhoddas:
Okay you win.Can you please dismantle evilbrain's ridiculous argument?

What's there to dismantle ? Only fools will see anything to it. Random mutations spoils things and has never been seen to make a new feature and natural selection can't make a damn pin. It is over hyped by evolutionists blind to the facts. EvilBrains post there was just one case of evolutionary storytelling.

DeepSight:

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

I'm ok

UyiIredia:


What's there to dismantle ? Only fools will see anything to it. Random mutations spoils things and has never been seen to make a new feature and natural selection can't make a damn pin. It is over hyped by evolutionists blind to the facts. EvilBrains post there was just one case of evolutionary storytelling.

And sir,what are the facts that evolutionist are blind to ?

Kay17:



Predators are naturally smart. In my opinion, it can be accounted for intelligence. The seagulls have the ability to manipulate their environment and especially where there are rewards, the trait is useful and valuable enough to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

If you skip the idiotic contributions of plaetton, evilbrain, davien and some others, this has been discussed.

I agree that intelligence is involved, but there must be more to it. (See my third post on page 0 about remoteness of reward.)

I think that birds may be able to sense movement of worms beneath the surface as they have acute hearing and sense of vibration. (See my sixth post on page 0, which addresses remoteness of reward.)

Someone also posted a useful link, which claimed observations of adult gulls teaching their young to tap for worms. I have not noticed this, personally. It would be interesting to see if this is the case.

You just have to ignore the level of illiteracy displayed in this thread. Most couldn't understand the simple question even after it was explained several times. They are too used to kindergarten squabbles. It is better to ignore the illiterates and just focus on the question.

double post

sinequanon:
The problem here is that ToE postulates small steps that build more complex outcomes.

What we have here is a behaviour (seagull running on the spot) and its reward (a worm).

But the link between the reward and the action appears to be very subtle, both because it is sporadic (worm may not appear) and deferred (worm typically would appear only after several minutes).

As this running on the spot behaviour seems to have no other function, how did the seagull come to anticipate such a seemingly remote reward, without using logic?

How can you break the behaviour down into small evolutionary steps of immediate reward, leading to the final complex behaviour?

I still owe this to intelligence. A seagull could have noticed the effect of running the ground and seeing the worms storm out. The seagull was capable of making the connection and repeat time and time again. This rightly reminds me of a Skinner experiment with pigeons and superstitions.

Again, the use of intelligence applies not only to this scenario but others, like communication, group hunts etc.

Kay17:


I still owe this to intelligence. A seagull could have noticed the effect of running the ground and seeing the worms storm out. The seagull was capable of making the connection and repeat time and time again. This rightly reminds me of a Skinner experiment with pigeons and superstitions.

Again, the use of intelligence applies not only to this scenario but others, like communication, group hunts etc.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

As I said, I think the response is too slow for them to make a connection between the running around and emergence of worms several minutes later.

That is why I suggested the connection is between running around and hearing the worms.

plaetton:


And sir,what are the facts that evolutionist are blind to ?

Facts such as random mutations NEVER building a new protein except in evolutionary fairy tales. And the fact that natural processes don't build systems with a code. Having a code is ALWAYS indicative of purpose which natural processes lack. Not to mention the fact that NS is grossly overhyped in what it can do which is at most conserve a trait. It doesn't make anything

UyiIredia:


Facts such as random mutations NEVER building a new protein except in evolutionary fairy tales. And the fact that natural processes don't build systems with a code. Having a code is ALWAYS indicative of purpose which natural processes lack. Not to mention the fact that NS is grossly overhyped in what it can do which is at most conserve a trait. It doesn't make anything

Again, you have refused to admit a natural process must be the immediate cause.

Kay17:


Again, you have refused to admit a natural process must be the immediate cause.

You still are yet to bring an example of a natural process making a code. I'm too willing to bet that any 'example' you bring will be false. You've tried previously with snowflakes and crystals which is preposterous.

UyiIredia:


Facts such as random mutations NEVER building a new protein except in evolutionary fairy tales. And the fact that natural processes don't build systems with a code. Having a code is ALWAYS indicative of purpose which natural processes lack. Not to mention the fact that NS is grossly overhyped in what it can do which is at most conserve a trait. It doesn't make anything

NS is grossly over-hyped.

But are biologists claiming that proteins are being built from SCRATCH? I think they may be arguing that existing proteins are differentiating and specializing. So, small changes happening over a long time frame cause existing proteins to diversify for different tasks.

As for a code, isn't that just a PR gimmick. DNA and RNA does not really operate like a code. They only report statistical correspondences between sequences of proteins (there isn't even a precise definition of a gene) and certain physical traits. They can't manipulate it like code. When they try, it is really hit and miss.

sinequanon:


If you skip the idiotic contributions of plaetton, evilbrain, davien and some others, this has been discussed.

I agree that intelligence is involved, but there must be more to it. (See my third post on page 0 about remoteness of reward.)

I think that birds may be able to sense movement of worms beneath the surface as they have acute hearing and sense of vibration. (See my sixth post on page 0, which addresses remoteness of reward.)

Someone also posted a useful link, which claimed observations of adult gulls teaching their young to tap for worms. I have not noticed this, personally. It would be interesting to see if this is the case.

You just have to ignore the level of illiteracy displayed in this thread. Most couldn't understand the simple question even after it was explained several times. They are too used to kindergarten squabbles. It is better to ignore the illiterates and just focus on the question.

Again and again.

It is either someone does not grasp an issue , in which case ignorance is the problem , or they are just dishonest to admit or show that they do not understand.

I say it again, your kneejerk reaction to evilbrain's post betrayed you big time.
And that is because you do not have a grasp of the fundamental mechanisms of the evolutionary process.

Let's look back at evilbrain's post (In red):


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.

What he did here, which I commended, was to show how traits are acquired and passed on to succeeding generations. This was the simplest way to illustrate the mechanisms of evolution to any novice.
That you failed to grasp it leaves much questions about your intellect and honesty.

Now compare what he posted here with this statement from you :
" I think that birds may be able to sense movement of worms beneath the surface as they have acute hearing and sense of vibration.".
Now, if this is true, which is probable, then evilbrain's explanation still explains how seagulls of eons ago may have acquired this advantageous ground-vibration-sensing trait , and then passed it along.

This is the part that either your ignorance or your dishonesty did not allow you consider.

Any person with a high school education in biology would have immediately grasped what evilbrain was conveying.
But apparently, you did not.

My earlier reference to cognitive dissonance explains your behavior.

So, I do think you owe evilbrain an apology.

UyiIredia:


You still are yet to bring an example of a natural process making a code. I'm too willing to bet that any 'example' you bring will be false. You've tried previously with snowflakes and crystals which is preposterous.

As I said earlier you preemptly defined 'codes'.

A proper definition would describe a code not make metaphysical leaps about the cause.

Kay17:


Again, you have refused to admit a natural process must be the immediate cause.

Evolution is not science. It is impossible to determine the origin of life. It cannot be tested or the entire scenario repeated. It, unlike religious origin can be changed or manipulated.

UyiIredia:


Facts such as random mutations NEVER building a new protein except in evolutionary fairy tales. And the fact that natural processes don't build systems with a code. Having a code is ALWAYS indicative of purpose which natural processes lack. Not to mention the fact that NS is grossly overhyped in what it can do which is at most conserve a trait. It doesn't make anything

I don't want to derail this particular thread to talk about your often repeated code nonsense, which, from the sound of your gibberisht , you must have heard somewhere but failed (as is common) to understand the full gist.

Can you please open a thread to explain what a code is.
Thank you .

Emmalot121:
Evolution is not science. It is impossible to determine the origin of life. It cannot be tested or the entire scenario repeated. It, unlike religious origin can be changed or manipulated.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life...just biodiversity.

sinequanon:


NS is grossly over-hyped.

But are biologists claiming that proteins are being built from SCRATCH? I think they may be arguing that existing proteins are differentiating and specializing. So, small changes happening over a long time frame cause existing proteins to diversify for different tasks.

As for a code, isn't that just a PR gimmick. DNA and RNA does not really operate like a code. They only report statistical correspondences between sequences of proteins (there isn't even a precise definition of a gene) and certain physical traits. They can't manipulate it like code. When they try, it is really hit and miss.

DNA and RNA without a doubt have codes in them.

Emmalot121:
Evolution is not science. It is impossible to determine the origin of life. It cannot be tested or the entire scenario repeated. It, unlike religious origin can be changed or manipulated.

Why is it impossible to determine the origin of life?

The theory of evolution has been vigorously tested over the past 150yrs, without, I might add, to any refutations, not a single.
The science of genetics has confirmed every evolutionary scenario predicted by the theory of evolution 150 yrs ago, and is enjoying wide applications in genetic engineering, medicine , agriculture and industry.

So, you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about.

plaetton:


I don't want to derail this particular thread to talk about your often repeated code nonsense, which, from the sound of your gibberisht , you must have heard somewhere but failed (as is common) to understand the full gist.

Can you please open a thread to explain what a code is.
Thank you .

Go back to school if you need me to explain what a code is. It only goes to show your ignorance on the matter. And did I talk of codes only. What about mutations being unable to make anything.

sinequanon:



As for a code, isn't that just a PR gimmick. DNA and RNA does not really operate like a code. They only report statistical correspondences between sequences of proteins (there isn't even a precise definition of a gene) and certain physical traits. They can't manipulate it like code. When they try, it is really hit and miss.

Well, at least you are doing a little good job of educating this Uyi slowpoke about what a code is and isn't.