₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Oh no I didn't: I responded, and you failed to take the matter further - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/5#16980916

In fact I challenged you to give an example, you said you would, but you never did.

Liar! I gave you an example. TWICE!

Here it is again: It is logical and beneficial for a unicellular organism to evolve into a multicellular one in order to avoid or overcome a predator.

HumbledbYGrace: [color=deeppink][size=20pt]How I miss Jesoul's feminine touch in this section [/size][/color]

Are you a lesbian?

Oh, I gave him and answer on his multicellular/unicellular evolution advantage and he ran away.


Any more questions deepsight?

davidylan: I thought you were quite aware that christianity lays no claims to science? You were the one hogging all the science and logic to yourself so try and answer the questions pls rather than waffling.

His reponse was for the godly like deep sight, who also believe in evolution.

Deep Sight: Well for the purpose of this discussion let us work with the attributes MR NIGER D.

Deep Sight: He made the point that life is not a mere mixture of physical elements or compounds such as amino acids.

That's what he was getting at.

What is life?

Deep Sight: No i do not think so. Not all life is conscious.

Well, that's what the fool (loveoftruth) you were praising was insinuating. And plaetton has been trying to say that abiogenis may produce life, albeit an unconscious one. So what is life?

Deep Sight: Ok, do that.

I just did: To avoid, or resist new predators.

Deep Sight: What is your question?

Do you think consciousness defines life? That until life's chemical elements gain consciousness, they cannot be considered to be alive?

Deep Sight: Begin with my question -

"Can you name an environmental change which will cause an adaptation that makes multi cellular organisms evolve from unicellular organisms - and how such a change would help the arising multi cellular organism in relation to that environmental change?"

I have many, but as you said "an", I will give you one: To avoid, or resist new predators.

Deep Sight: No, water is not a living thing, just as amino acids are not living things and as such an experiment which produces water does nothing to show emergent life, just as an experiment which produces amino acids does nothing to show emergent life!

That wasn't my question but anyway, let it be.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Se.xuality could not be the result of evolution. Evolution does not work in such a way as to produce the se.xes at all in the first place. If you cannot get that, then I can't help you.

I have tried, with all the posers, to show you that evolution alone cannot account for things.

I don't know why you keep saying my opening this thread was meant to steal a march on you. I have explained that already.

So far so good, there is nothing tangible you have been able to say.

Daz all.

How do you know the bolded to be true? Look at snails. Nothing prevents them from evolving into specific male and female snails in the next 2000000 years.

Deep Sight: And as far as we know, unicellular organisms, through all environmental changes, remain the most successful organisms. As such, there is still no discernable evolutionary impetus there.

Secondly, can you name an environmental change which will cause an adaptation that makes multi cellular organisms evolve from unicellular organisms - and how such a change would help the arising multi cellular organism in relation to that environmental change?

The bolded is simply wrong. I don't even know where to begin.

Deep Sight: Is water a living thing? Does it have Mr. NIGER D?

You dodging my question?

kids.

72-92 here

@ deepsight, so you think consciousness defines life then? That until these chemical elements gain consciousness, they cannot be considered to be alive? Is that what you are saying?

Deep Sight: I have no issues with this, I know and recognize this. What I state is that on the bare face of evolution, already successful unicellular organisms would have had no evolutionary impetus to develop into different species.

Yes, they would: adaptation to environmental changes.

Deep Sight: Nope: when the question is the change, mutation and survival of species, then it is spot on. You cannot have such a successful species develop gradually into a form that renders its species less successful. That would be an evolutionary absurdity: and this is what has happened with development from unicellular life to advanced multi-cellular life. There would have to be an X factor that compels and even necessitates such a development or progression.

You seem so stuck on this "successful" definition of yours that you refuse to take other factors into account. What is evolution without mutation and adaptation and survival? If being "less successful", as you put it, permits a specie to adapt and survive and be content, then it wouldn't be an absurdity for that specie to evolve towards that state.

Why are you stuck up on numbers? Numbers is not everything. Right before our very eyes, oyibo women are evolving into les fertile females. They have less babies than before and their bodies are adapting. Would you say that oyibo families are "less successful" than over-numbered african families?

ooman: sexual diversion evolved when a chromosomal aberration led to different sex defining chromosomes being in different daughter cells during cell division.
sex chromosomes x and y in mammals, y and x in birds, xx and x in some insects, x and none in some other insects, Bleep and x in still other organisms and different other combinations in other organisms are results of mutations in ancestors.

mutations proving that sexual diversion occured by evolution include multiple sexual parts like two VJs in a woman in America, our very own bisexual female player Iyabo (who is now a male by operation btw), xxy in males and a single x in humans human female.

Concerning the evolution of psychology of sexual attraction. I have no answer presently.

You may want to stop stating hypotheses as facts.

Deep sight, I think you are confusing evolution with "being succesful" or "being better than before". No. Evolution is NOT progression. It is just change. A continuous change. It is a change to adapt to the environment at a given moment. You may not agree, but right now, you are evolving. Every living thing is evolving at their own pace. Some end up worse than previously. Others adapt better. That's life. It's not a static.

ooman: do you call a cell life or do you call DNA life. how do you define life?

Well, that's complicated and scientists are still scratching their heads on the best way to define life. Can something be alive without dna or any of its components? Is non-carbon based life possible? Is non-dna life possible? It all depends on how you define life. I have no general definition for you.

Deep Sight: Numerically sustained success by propagation.

I wouldn't call lack of birth control a "success", . But on a serious note, I think ooman has given a good response about a population not outnumbering its food source.

And seeing the number of species that perform sexual reproduction and the ever increasing number of them under the right conditions, I'll say there's definitely an evolutionary reason why this method of reproduction is preferable for these species. (Maybe pleasure? )

ooman: a machine cannot function without electricity, does creating electricity mean creating a machine? NO

life and water are different but life is dependent on water just like machine and electricity are different but machines are different from what powers them.

Now if a man makes a machine without making electricity, is it right to say he has created a machine? Now there is your answer.

Water would be useless without DNA, at least to life. so when talking about life components, water may be excused, just like when talking about a machine components, electricity maybe excused

It depends on what you call "life".

ok manmustwac, you've done this too many times for it to be a typo.

It's "does". Not "dose".

You're welcome.

I still would love a response from deepsight on my question about successful species.

Chibuebem: smh. God did.

when?

lagerwhenindoubt: I have heard of this so-called ravenous moderator. the boogey man of the Islam Section. Far be it from me to call him by such positively negative attributes. but he is well suited for the job. would you not be shocked if he was any different

I wonder o! Imagine expecting a pig to act like a cat. No! Pigs will act like pigs and muslims will act like muslims.

Chibuebem: its what i learned from Gods word. I know God, and he teaches me his word.

So someone else told you then?

Chibuebem: see sir? Now you bring up more excuses. I know God and worship him in spirit. Jesus is alive, and we do not know him according to the flesh anymore. We know him as the alive and powerful son of God. Not a white man. Is it not pathetic that you're a racist sir? I dont think i'm saved, i know i'm saved from sin. Yes, sin. This is mans problem. The inability to get above the desires of his flesh and mind. This is the fundamental problem of humanity. We need salvation from the passions of the corrupt flesh, its appetites, and physical desires, and the corrupt mind, with his huge ego, his selfishness and self-consciousness.

Is that what you were told or did you come up with these all by yourself?

striktlymi: So in your books, not knowing the circumstances that would necessitate God's intervention is the same as not being aware that God intervenes?

That would imply that you also consider these comments as the same:

"I don't know the circumstances that necessitates your anger"

And

"I don't know if you get angry"

I hear ya!

Hehe. Cornered fox lopsided argument.
Does your god intervene in the lives of animals? yes or no.



Student: Does water freeze at zero degrees centigrade?
Teacher: I don't know of any circumstances that would necessitate trying to freeze water at zero degrees centigrade.
[size=18pt]WTF?[/size]

@ deep sight, what do you mean when you say that unicellular organisms are more successful than multicellular ones?

striktlymi: Why not embarrass me with a quote of where I said the bold:

Here

striktlymi: Not sure if I mentioned the bold but to answer the rest of your question: I do not know the circumstances that would necessitate God's intervening in the lives of animals.