₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
You are funny. Perhaps yu didnt understand the queston. That's not unique to you. Almost everyone either fails to understand it or pretends not to understand it. I will try and help by rephrasing it -

- During the millions of years it took for the sexual organs and all their functions to evolve, how were the organisms they belonged to reproducing?

Deal with this first. In doing so think carefully. Remember that each aspect of the sexual reproduction system must have synchronized with its opposite in the other gender. So as sperm was evolving for example, eggs must have been evolving in the other gender. And since this process takes millions of years as is always claimed, how was the organism reproducing during that time?

I will reproduce my other questions in my next post.

PS: THE extracts you posted are way off the mark in addressing this question Waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off the mark - embarrasingly so - whch proves my point about how you people just like to quote any scientific terms that sound good - without thinking carefully.

Respectfully, these are really child-like questions of someone who knows almost nothing about biology. Asexual reproduction was all there was and there was no male or female. Eventually rudimentary sex organs had to gradually appear as the most efficient way and over time evolve to what we have.
Once again, this type of discussion is not suitable to this type of forum. There are highly specialized forums that have this type of discussion. Otherwise it amounts to a waste of time because people don't know what they're talking about.
Example, Charles Darwin and others have written volumes explaining evolution, but someone reads this vague summary below and runs to Nairaland to argue evolution!

FreeIgboho:
Respectfully, these are really child-like questions of someone who knows almost nothing about biology. Asexual reproduction was all there was and there was no male or female. Eventually rudimentary sex organs had to gradually appear as the most efficient way and over time evolve to what we have.
Once again, this type of discussion is not suitable to this type of forum. There are highly specialized forums that have this type of discussion. Otherwise it amounts to a waste of time because people don't know what they're talking about!
Example, Charles Darwin and others have written volumes explaining evolution, but someone reads this vague summary below and runs ti Nairaland to argue evolution!

With every respect you are not just being child-like, I lack the words to describe your inability to comprehend.
Please see the bold.

I ask again, during the process of evolution of the requisite sexual organs, how was the organism reproducing.

Are you suggesting it was reproducing asexually?
I hope not, because that would be the height of absurdity.

I have at all events left other posts for you - including an article by advanced scientists, showing how this is a problem.
Also, if you yourself research a little, you will quickly realize that there is no easy answer to this question and it remains an enigma even in scientific circles.

So please school up.

DeepSight:
With every respect you are not just being child-like, I lack the words to describe your inability to comprehend.
Please see the bold.

I ask again, during the process of evolution of the requisite sexual organs, how was the organism reproducing.

Are you suggesting it was reproducing asexually?
I hope not, because that would be the height of absurdity.

I have at all events left other posts for you - including an article by advanced scientists, showing how this is a problem.
Also, if you yourself research a little, you will quickly realize that there is no easy answer to this question and it remains an enigma even in scientific circles.

So please school up.

This is a very child-like question indeed. You are assuming evolution of sexual organs happened sepatate from evolution of organisms. They are all intertwined. Asexual reproduction in simple organisms gradually become sexual reproduction as more complex organisms evolved.
Look, this type of discussion is beyond this forum. I bet you don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology!

FreeIgboho:
This is a very child-like question indeed. You are assuming evolution of sexual organs happened sepatate from evolution of organisms. They are all intertwined. Asexual reproduction in simple organisms gradually become sexual reproduction as more complex organisms evolved.
Look, this type of discussion is beyond this forum. I bet you don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology!

You are just being escapist. Stop telling me how childlike the question is. I repeat it for clarity - how was the organism reproducing during the millions of years it required to evolve its sexual reproductive system. Its a very simple and straightforward question. Admit you dont know the answer instead of hiding behind cowardly ad-hominems which I am used to from everyone who this queston is posed to.

As regards the bold, your comprehension skills are really alarming. I am not assuming any such thing. Qute the reverse actually. I am pointing out the exact difficulty in how the organism could have continued in exstence while its reproductive systems were evolving for millions of years.

Please go and read the article I posted - It will show you that this is a real issue even for the most advanced evolutionary biologists. The writers have PHDs in Evolutionary Biology.

DeepSight:
You are just being escapist. Stop telling me how childlike the question is. I repeat it for clarity - how was the organism reproducing during the million of years it required to evolve its sexual reproductive system. Its a very simple and straightforward question. Admit you dont know the answer instead of hiding behind cowardly ad-hominems which I am used to from everyone who this queston is posed to.

As regards the bold, your comprehension skills are really alarming. I am not assuming any such thing. Qute the reverse actually. I am pointing out the exact difficulty in how the organism could have continued in exstence while its reproductive systems were evolving for millions of years.

Please go and read the article I posted - It will show you that this is a real issue even for the most advance evolutionary biologists. The writers have PHDs in Evolutionary Biology.

Please read the below and come back and tell me why your question is not child-like

FreeIgboho:
Please read the below and come back and tell me why your question is not child-like

Still doesnt answer my question. Kindly address my question in one conscise sentence instead of pretending to know what you do not.

FreeIgboho:
Please read the below and come back and tell me why your question is not child-like

https://www.nairaland.com/8467293/inexplicable-instincts#135998975

Why are you avoiding my article.

Stop wasting time using AI to send me screenshots of AI answers.

DeepSight:
Still doesnt answer my question. Kindly address my question in one conscise sentence instead of pretending to know what you do not.

Are you kidding or what? Your child-like question is "how were they reproducing durring the evolution?" The screenshot succinctly answers that

FreeIgboho:
Are you kidding or what? Your child-like question is "how were they reproducing durring the evolution? The screenshot succinctly answers that

Please just stop pretending. Stop using AI. Get schorlarly and real. Please see this link -

"The origin of sexually reproducing organisms from asexually reproducing ancestors is a profound mystery which has baffled many an evolutionary biologist. The origin and subsequent maintenance of sex and recombination is a phenomenon not easily explained by Darwinian evolution. Indeed, there are several substantive, well-known reasons why the origin of sex presents a serious problem for conventional evolutionary explanations."

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/

FreeIgboho:
Are you kidding or what? Your child-like question is "how were they reproducing durring the evolution? The screenshot succinctly answers that

Point to the sentence in your AI scheenshot where it provides the answer thanks.

DeepSight:
https://www.nairaland.com/8467293/inexplicable-instincts#135998975

Why are you avoiding my article.

Stop wasting time using AI to send me screenshots of AI answers.

AI goes through millions of articles like the one you referenced to produce an answer, instead of just one likely biased article

"Sex continues to reign as the ultimate conundrum, the queen of problems, in evolutionary biology. Accounting for its origin in terms of evolutionary rationale is inevitably doomed to failure. As David Tyler recently remarked, “Time and time again, Darwinists fill the gaps in knowledge with their theoretical models, but sooner or later, the next generation of scholars will realise that Darwinists have constructed a virtual world that does not match the real world revealed by research.”

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/

Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology
Jonathan McLatchie

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie holds a Bachelor's degree in Forensic Biology from the University of Strathclyde, a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, a second Master's degree in Medical and Molecular Bioscience from Newcastle University, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University. Previously, Jonathan was an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Jonathan has been interviewed on podcasts and radio shows including "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio, and many others. Jonathan has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, South Africa and Asia promoting the evidence of design in nature.

@ FreeIgboho - you are free to examine the credentials of this man and say whether he is childlike in his conclusions.

FreeIgboho:
AI goes through millions of articles like the one you referenced to produce an answer, instead of just one likely biased article

I cant take you seriously if you are just using AI. AI cannot reason in matters like this. It simply throws up what it finds online. If you put in the question differently e.g: what are the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction - it wil also throw up articles.

I cant waste my time debating ChatGTP. i give my co-discussants enough respect to actually discuss from my mind, and not from AI.

DeepSight:
I cant take you seriously if you are just using AI. AI cannot reason in matters like this. It simply throws up what it finds online. If you put in the question differently e.g: what are the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction - it wil also throw up articles.

I cant waste my time debating ChatGTP. i give my co-discussants enough respect to actually discuss from my mind, and not from AI.

DeepSight:
Point to the sentence in your AI scheenshot where it provides the answer thanks.

You ask a question and receive a very satisfactory answer then start harping AI. What do you care if it is AI or BI. Furthermore, these are the most satisfactory answers from PEOPLE. AI has no answers.
The encircled is the statement you asked for

plaetton:
The reason we give these simple answers are based on elementary understanding of the slow ,complex and tedious process of evolution.

Surely sire, you don't expect me to give a PhD level lecture on how survival instincts are hardwired into genes of living species.

There is no such thing as a ' suitable ' answer.
Answers have to have core scientific basis in order to be considered as plausible.

Now, if you have a good, scientific explanation for how little puppies find their mother's ripples, then please share it. We would all be certainly enriched by the knowledge.

But this is a double standard. You can't seriously resign yourself to giving "simple answers" and still be demanding scientific justification from other people. It's either you explain the mechanism or just admit that you're ignorant.

FreeIgboho:
You ask a question and receive a very satisfactory answer then start harping AI. What do you care if it is AI or BI. Furthermore, these are the most satisfactory answers from PEOPLE. AI has no answers.
The encircled is the statement you asked for

The AI quote again is pure speculative bunkum. It even reads "might have" and you cant see the nonsensicalities in the ensuing suggestions. Direct exchange ko, indirect exchange ni. With what systems?
Please do better.

I have left you enough material from actual scientists to read.
Good luck.

DeepSight:
The AI quote again is pure speculative bunkum. It even reads "might have" and you cant see the nonsensicalities in the ensuing suggestions. Direct exchange ko, indirect exchange ni. With what systems?
Please do better.

I have left you enough material from actual scientists to read.
Good luck.

So from now onwards if someone asks you the child-like question (truly the type of question a child would ask), how were they reproducing while evolving sex organs, you know what to tell them.
Been nice chatting witcha!

FreeIgboho:
So from now onwards if someone asks you the child-like question (truly the type of question a child would ask), how were they reproducing while evolving sex organs, you know what to tell them.
Been nice chatting witcha!

Mr. ChatGPT, you wasted my time. Good day.

Moremii:
But this is a double standard. You can't seriously resign yourself to giving "simple answers" and still be demanding scientific justification from other people. It's either you explain the mechanism or just admit that you're ignorant.

I disagree.
For example. Atom is the smallest indivisible particle of matter.
That is the simple, elementary definition of an atom.
Now, just because I offer that simple definition does not oblige me to give you a more detailed degree course on atomic theory.
You have schools ,science books, Google and chatgpt easily available tools to enrich your knowledge on the subject.

DeepSight:
"Sex continues to reign as the ultimate conundrum, the queen of problems, in evolutionary biology. Accounting for its origin in terms of evolutionary rationale is inevitably doomed to failure. As David Tyler recently remarked, “Time and time again, Darwinists fill the gaps in knowledge with their theoretical models, but sooner or later, the next generation of scholars will realise that Darwinists have constructed a virtual world that does not match the real world revealed by research.”

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/

Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology
Jonathan McLatchie

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie holds a Bachelor's degree in Forensic Biology from the University of Strathclyde, a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, a second Master's degree in Medical and Molecular Bioscience from Newcastle University, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University. Previously, Jonathan was an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Jonathan has been interviewed on podcasts and radio shows including "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio, and many others. Jonathan has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, South Africa and Asia promoting the evidence of design in nature.

@ FreeIgboho - you are free to examine the credentials of this man and say whether he is childlike in his conclusions.

Of course there are sticky issues and questions about the complexity of evolution.
The very fact that we have these nagging questions does not in any way contradict the core theory. Rather is only encourages us to continue to seek scientifically rational answers.

Theory of evolution is not a complete A to Z package, because it is not dogma .
In fact, similar theories such as the the Atomic theory, Gravitational theory and Germ Theory are scientifically accepted ideas for which ongoing work continues.
Science is a series of Questions, with one answer always leading to new questions.
Everyday, new scientific advances continue to peer in and answer nagging questions of yesteryears.

Like I said earlier, if you have a scientifically rational explanation for these nagging questions, we are open to hearing it.

What we will not accept is the God of the Gaps answers.

plaetton:
I disagree.
For example. Atom is the smallest indivisible particle of matter.
That is the simple, elementary definition of an atom.
Now, just because I offer that simple definition does not oblige me to give you a more detailed degree course on atomic theory.
You have schools ,science books, Google and chatgpt easily available tools to enrich your knowledge on the subject.

The problem will be where the simple explanation you are giving actually is meaningless concerning the problem being discussed and actually is used as an escapist line to avoid attempting a serious answer especially because you know there is none.

plaetton:
I disagree.
For example. Atom is the smallest indivisible particle of matter.
That is the simple, elementary definition of an atom.
Now, just because I offer that simple definition does not oblige me to give you a more detailed degree course on atomic theory.
You have schools ,science books, Google and chatgpt easily available tools to enrich your knowledge on the subject.

Yes, the atomic structure is well-documented. It is also teachable, but neither of that is the point. What you've missed here apparently is that the mechanisms that are responsible for instinctual behavior are largely unexplained at the fundamental level and so therefore, are not readily available in standard evolutionary literature. So practically, you're just assuming the existence of comprehensive scientific understanding where there is none. How do complex behavioral algorithms emerge from molecular processes? How do organisms access environmental information they've never encountered?

Are we going to sit here and pretend like these puzzles have been solved?

The problem with you reductionists is that your intellectual cowardice always seems to elude you lot. When it comes to evolution, Google, ChatGPT and all the other resources you half-heartedly name-dropped only document the statistical link between behaviors and reproductive success, not the actual mechanisms through which the information about the environment is encoded in genetic sequences and accessed by our consciousness.

I'm going to go out on a leg here and assert here that you haven't even properly examined the so-called explanations you've been lazily citing because if you truly did, I don't think it should cost you anything to just articulate them, even if in just two short paragraphs.

Moremii:
Yes, the atomic structure is well-documented. It is also teachable, but neither of that is the point. What you've missed here apparently is that the mechanisms that are responsible for instinctual behavior are largely unexplained at the fundamental level and so therefore, are not readily available in standard evolutionary literature. So practically, you're just assuming the existence of comprehensive scientific understanding where there is none. How do complex behavioral algorithms emerge from molecular processes? How do organisms access environmental information they've never encountered?

Are we going to sit here and pretend like these puzzles have been solved?

The problem with you reductionists is that your intellectual cowardice always seems to elude you lot. When it comes to evolution, Google, ChatGPT and all the other resources you half-heartedly name-dropped only document the statistical link between behaviors and reproductive success, not the actual mechanisms through which the information about the environment is encoded in genetic sequences and accessed by our consciousness.

I'm going to go out on a leg here and assert here that you haven't even properly examined the so-called explanations you've been lazily citing because if you truly did, I don't think it should cost you anything to just articulate them, even if in just two short paragraphs.

It is not my job to educate you on this forum on the subjects of microbiology, biochemistry, DNA replication or Protein Synthesis. These are complex disciplines themselves with a lot of branches and sub-branches.

My dear.
You're a jjc in this debate.
Many many years ago, we trashed out these issues on this very forum.
The problem I have is when you yourself have insufficient knowledge on a subject , you expect that it is the obligation of your debate opponent to teach you that subject.

If you want to understand Protein Synthesis and how it is intertwined with evolution and natural selection, the information is fully in the public domain.

I repeat, it is not my job to make you understand it.

DeepSight:
The problem will be where the simple explanation you are giving actually is meaningless concerning the problem being discussed and actually is used as an escapist line to avoid attempting a serious answer especially because you know there is none.

When you're asking a test question, then it is no longer a discussion. You want a particular answer.
Suppose, I fail to articulate in a language and syntax you want, does that automatically my position wrong and yours right ?

plaetton:
It is not my job to educate you on this forum on the subjects of microbiology, biochemistry, DNA replication or Protein Synthesis. These are complex disciplines themselves with a lot of branches and sub-branches.

My dear.
You're a jjc in this debate.
Many many years ago, we trashed out these issues on this very forum.
The problem I have is when you yourself have insufficient knowledge on a subject , you expect that it is the obligation of your debate opponent to teach you that subject.

If you want to understand Protein Synthesis and how it is intertwined with evolution and natural selection, the information is fully in the public domain.

I repeat, it is not my job to make you understand it.

Are you always this condescending? Sir, I wasn't asking you to give me basic lessons in biochemistry. I was only drawing your attention to the fact that there is an obvious gap between the way our brain works at molecular levels and how we make decisions or exhibit complex behaviors. If you have a way to bridge this gap, then I'll be glad to hear it. And how does protein synthesis explain how information from the environment becomes encoded or how consciousness is able to access non-experiential knowledge? I genuinely want to know.

Just so you know, I'm equally not obligated to accept your lazy hand-waving as a convincing argument. Once again, if you can't sufficiently explain the mechanism, I don't understand why you can't just accept that you have limited knowledge on the subject.

DeepSight:
LordReed -

What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to cite many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

FreeIgboho / Wirinet / Plaetton

By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

You did not need to go this far.

You should have just pointed it out as the typical god of gaps argument.

This is just my take though.

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -

DeepSight:
PS: There is actually a suitable answer to this question. I want to see if you put your finger on it and we can discuss from there.

The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

Everyday247:
You did not need to go this far.

You should have just pointed it out as the typical god of gaps argument.

This is just my take though.

Well, I'm just trying to know what he stands for so I can engage him accordingly.
I haven't properly gone through the thread, so I don't know if he attempts to use any god to fill the gap of human knowledge.

Everyday247:
You did not need to go this far.

You should have just pointed it out as the typical god of gaps argument.

This is just my take though.

I hope you know even an atheist can point out problems with for example, the theory of evolution, without it being the case that he is trying to say "God did it."

Moremii:
Are you always this condescending? Sir, I wasn't asking you to give me basic lessons in biochemistry. I was only drawing your attention to the fact that there is an obvious gap between the way our brain works at molecular levels and how we make decisions or exhibit complex behaviors. If you have a way to bridge this gap, then I'll be glad to hear it. And how does protein synthesis explain how information from the environment becomes encoded or how consciousness is able to access non-experiential knowledge? I genuinely want to know.

Just so you know, I'm equally not obligated to accept your lazy hand-waving as a convincing argument. Once again, if you can't sufficiently explain the mechanism, I don't understand why you can't just accept that you have limited knowledge on the subject.

Brilliantly said.

I think you really touched upon the core issue and summarised it well and even much better than I have been able to when you wrote "how consciousness is able to access non-experiential knowledge?."

That is the core of the matter.
Thank you and good morning.

Moremii:
Yes, the atomic structure is well-documented. It is also teachable, but neither of that is the point. What you've missed here apparently is that the mechanisms that are responsible for instinctual behavior are largely unexplained at the fundamental level and so therefore, are not readily available in standard evolutionary literature. So practically, you're just assuming the existence of comprehensive scientific understanding where there is none. How do complex behavioral algorithms emerge from molecular processes? How do organisms access environmental information they've never encountered?

Are we going to sit here and pretend like these puzzles have been solved?

The problem with you reductionists is that your intellectual cowardice always seems to elude you lot. When it comes to evolution, Google, ChatGPT and all the other resources you half-heartedly name-dropped only document the statistical link between behaviors and reproductive success, not the actual mechanisms through which the information about the environment is encoded in genetic sequences and accessed by our consciousness.

I'm going to go out on a leg here and assert here that you haven't even properly examined the so-called explanations you've been lazily citing because if you truly did, I don't think it should cost you anything to just articulate them, even if in just two short paragraphs.

Once again thank you ever so much. The truth is even when we discussed the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction which I raised years ago and which Plaetton referred to (that's what he meant when he said the issues have been discussed years ago), the attitude you have described is exactly what I was faced with from Plaetton and others. Not once did any of them attempt even the shortest description of an actual answer. All along they just pretended the answers were available and flung insults for the inquiry. Meanwhile any brief research on the matter reveals it to be a thorny one even for scientists.