₦airaland Forum

Pope Xander VII: The first chapter of Genesis refers to how Yahweh created the things we see. how Yahweh created the rivers, the animals...

The earth is extremely insignificant in the universe. Our solar system in the milky way galaxy is just like a CD on the earth(similar size ratios).

You do not know for a fact that the earth is "extremely insignificant" in the universe. You could never know this unless you know all the secrets of the universe. That something is infinitesimal and most tiny in comparison to its environment is no grounds to declare it insignificant to that environment - unless you have full and complete knowledge of that environment - which you do not.

Going by your analogy, one could look at the huge population of a country and declare that one individual therein is "extremely insignificant" to the country, on account of size and numbers. However, if you are ignorant of the country's system, laws and codes, it may miss you that that one individual may be the President of that Country and is thus hugely significant. This is just a rough analogy to show you that size alone is a poor parametre for your conclusion on the significance of the earth.

Why did Yahweh only speak about rivers and trees, not one mention of the blackholes that have an almost infinite gravitational force. Not one mention of the white and red dwarf stars.

Perhaps because we live among trees and rivers and not among black holes and "white and red dwarf stars", hmmmm?

rationalmind: I hope you realise your answer can be summarised with this statement which I believe you should see the problems in.

#in deepsights voice#

"Hey biologists, stop wasting your time researching and looking for answers, evolution can not and will never account for sexual reproduction"


If scientists had always employed this mode of thinking, it won't be difficult to see we might most likely still remain in the stone age.

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

Logicboy03: Just look at the liar!! In the last paragraph, he claims that he didn't look for areas unknown in evolution on the internet......he just thought of the problems and by coincidence, they were already problems that scientists were struggling with!!!

Sorry, Deepsight but are you a biologist? How would you know to look for problems in the evolution of the mammary glands? Why not the brain or the pancreas? Or the lungs?


Guy, you keep exposing your dishonesty

I don't know what drives your desperation.

I was referring to the 12 posers I created - because I did not ask questions in the OP.

As you may recall, I also raised this same question months ago in my thread on Evolution and the Big-Bang. I didn't go searching anywhere to raise the questions then, either.

wiegraf: Erm, is this what you're whinning about this week? How has it not been addressed?

Lol. This is actually funny. Not funny-ha-ha.

Funny-Cuckoo.

Logicboy03: See how this guy speaks with both sides of his mouth?

First the theory of evolution is flawed because of mammry glands and sexual reproduction....but now the theory of evolution is not affected by them....


Furthermore, the scientists have theories and hypothesis for the evolution of mammary glands and seexual reproduction....one of which could be right...so to say that evolution doesn't explain the phenomena is outrightly ridiculous because that would mean that you have actually rule out the possiblity out of ignorance

rationalmind: @Deepsight

I'm starting too see there's no reason at all for the posers and the thread itself.

You are wrong, as I will show you.

Why keep asking or ask for answers to the posers at all when you know within yourself there are no consensus and the posers are still disputed even within scientific circles.

To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.

Why are you asking for what you know no one has answers to?

It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.

I can as well spend a few minutes on google, look for grey and dark areas in science which are still widely disputed amongst scientists, construct posers around them and ask you for answers.

I hope you realise that will be synonymous to what you did with the thread and your constant demands for answers to the posers.

Well that was not the case with me. I actually thought these posers up myself and wrote them out. I did not "search" for any area with divergent scientific views just to then post and "discredit" science, no way, what would be the purpose of that.

And as I thought, and as I wrote, I read about further and discovered that this is already a raging controversy for a long time. That pleased me because it showed that I was not asking myself si.lly questions, but was asking valid scientific questions.

And as you know, this is not the first time I have brought this question up. I brought it up also as one of 12 other posers I set out regarding evolution on another thread several months ago. Surely you are aware of that.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

I hope this clarifies.

mazaje: Things are going very well. . .Just the Naija craziness. .But am kind of loving it even though sometimes its very frustrating. . .As for the juju trial the soldier friend that was supposed to give me his gun to use advised me against it. Getting the gun turned out to be very difficult, I thought it was going to be very easy. .You can't just go and meet any police man or soldier and tell him/her that you want to make use his/her gun to test the efficacy of juju. It has to be some one you know very well . .I prefer using an AK 47 for the trial because it does not jam and it is very lethal. . . .Getting one in Nigeria with all the security issues is a problem, but once I get it we will do it, cos am still in Nigeria. . .

Ah, I hope you use an animal and not a human target o. Even at that, use an animal that is normally used for food such as ewu, so that when the juju fails, you can make it into isi-ewu. I will provide the beer.

plaetton: This is very interesting indeed.
I can't stop laughing.

At your own arrogant ignorance, obviously.

You want to run away from your own posers, because, like you have just hinted, it would take a million pages of explanation to drive home the point?.

If that is what you got from this statement - - - >

Deep Sight: Sometimes I do wish to write epistles explaining such simple things and why they are problems: however I must say that I am often discouraged by the knowledge from experience that even 1 million pages of explanations will fall on determinedly and willfully deaf ears.

- - -> Then you need to urgently refund your school fees to your parents, or whoever else you have short-changed by having them pay for your (mis)education.

And yet this is what you came here to ask NL atheist to do for you?

Your fear is noted: after your catastrophic first attempt, it is quite understandable.

What a guy you are!
Unbelievable!.

What is quite unbelievable is that this is the sort of village-clown response that you mustered to a post that asked these key questions - - >

Deep Sight: This is cardinal because entire theories, which people like you endorse as inviolable truth, are founded on statements like this; which scientists then eternally use as the explanation for everything else:

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

Just take a look at that statement in quote just above from the link I placed below it. That statement is the fundamental assumption on which ALL of this is built: explanations of how the reproduction occurs are then contrived (many different theories, including your nonsense on polarity -which by the way does not appear among any serious studies as an explanation or option) - and based on that fundamental assumption, which is taken for granted, stories are built.

This is why I began my posers with the very simple - even simplistic question - as to why living things are self replicating at all. Scientific explanations are all hinged on the assumption of this need: and they never - absolutely never - say anything on why this need is there: and what makes living things have this need in the first place.

So that is the village-clown sort of response you contrived to such lucid questions. And you wish to be taken seriously? I have told you before that your name has fast become synonymous with LB, Mr Troll, and such other unserious and frankly d.aft elements. But no matter, I don't expect you to post based on anyone's opinion of you, least of all mine. I certainly wouldn't.

It is beyond belief that your revert is to ask of me answers to my own posers. My dear, the posers are for you and your ilk. There are reasons why I do not give the posers to religious theists who believe in evolution - clearly, because they hold a belief with which one stroke would nullify the posers - namely, they believe in Intelligent and Purposeful Design. It is therefore useless for me to give such people the posers to answer. It is arrogant nit-wits like you and your co-travelers that should answer the posers. Simple.

plaetton: It shows that you are still wholly ignorant of how science works and evolves.

Making a logical and reasonable assumption on a subject while studying it is a tried and tested method of scientific discovery.

Science evolves, and have grown thus far because , just like the evolutionary process itself, science builds small bridges of knowledge one at a time.
And let me correct you: there no controversies in science. There are competing ideas, competing notions, competing approaches and competing theories all with same goal of arriving at the same truths. If scientists disagree on one aspect of a theory, that does not invalidate the basic underpinnings of that theory.

@ the bold - I have not said in any way that the basic underpinnings of the The Theory of Evolution have been invalidated. Indeed, if that were the case, I would outrightly declare that I wholly reject the theory. In contrast, I have said like a broken record that I subscribe to the Theory.

Therefore why do you insist on repeatedly writing such gibberish as this? Is it because you have nothing else to write? Or is it because the nonsense you wrote as your proposition has been exposed for what it is?

PS: In fact, to be clear, rather than argue that the basic underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution have been invalidated, this is what I said ->

Deep Sight . . . the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena . . .

In short, that the ToE principles do not apply to these phenomena, and thus do not explain these phenomena. And so, other factors must.

Having reviewed that, tell me, why on earth will you deliberately and consistently misrepresent what I have been saying. So you may have a laugh?

Be serious.

FOLYKAZE: @ Rationalmind

Did you find description of sex position and styles p&m had that lead to your pregnancy the last time you checked your birth certificate or did you find any explanation that described how you won the race among other sperm cell inside 'Pman P'? (sorry if this is embarassing).

Somethings are not rational when talked about considering moment and person. There is no word that can move me in some occassions. And there are somethings I cant reveal considering the person intellect and mindset. It really irrational to ask for QM from the buble. It like searching for chemical components in finance textbook. To be sincere with you, this thread is completetly display of dishonesty.

I am an atheist and embrace logical reasoning but not and never stupidity. Give me water so that I satisfied my thirst and not stories of molecules contained in water.........if you understand this, you would see where am pointing at.

[size=16pt]GBAM! ! ![/size]

plaetton: Did you not state in another thread that you thought the bible was a book that contained great truths and wisdom?

Yes I did, and yes it does.

What truth and what wisdom if the very critical knowledge of origin is omitted?

It is not omitted. It states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1 is it's statement on Origin. And it also describes that same God as eternal and uncreated, as the beginning and the end. You are free to disagree with its answer, but you cannot claim that it did not give its answer.

And also, God did not need technical explanations to convey the knowledge of origin if he wanted to pass it on.
In the ancient books of Egypt, Summer and Babylon, much astronomical, scientific and cosmological knowledge was transmitted via passion plays, songs, poetry, pictograms and religious symbolism.

Exactly, and the scriptures are chuck full of these.

The story of the Garden of Eden is one such story which someone like you may never understand. People with more open minds and deeper perspective understand that it communicates the departure of the spirit of man (fall) from its spiritual home for experience in the world of matter.

So , once again sir, your attempt to defend god's shortcomings have failed.

You know very well that I do not subscribe to the specific ontology of God as conveyed in the bible in entirety, so you should be aware that I never set out to defend that. If you were older on this forum, you would have known me as a rabid anti-bible-god critic and relentless Yahweh-basher. I make these statements here out of simple reason and logic, where I see atheists going over board and becoming fundamentalist radicals with no good sense - such as demanding why the bible does not discuss quantum physics!

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: Wikipedia are biased to a considerable extent. One easily gets the feeling they are liberals and easily pro-Western. A ready example of this bias in the case of evolution-creation: they don't balance both sides at all; in fact, they misrepresent creationists and ID'sts. Another possible one could be in the conservative-'progressive' divide: how they portray conservatives eg Limbaugh against liberals esp liberal democrats.

Even where this is true (which I do not say it is) the points I listed for Evil Brain on the issue of referring to Wikipedia in such a discussion still remain valid: especially in an instance where a statement sourced from Wikipedia, is there because it has a reference from a credible academic journal or research work, which is listed as a footnote with a link and verifiable.

In reality therefore, the information is from that cited source - and not - "from Wikipedia"!

Wikipedia itself is not a source - that's the point here! - - - > it is therefore very ignorant and f.oolish for people like Evil Brain to sit back and say "lol, you are citing Wikipedia!"

Very f.oolish in this instance indeed!

aManFromMars: DeepSight's posers do not demand answers, but rather speculations.

And that is why real life scientists among the best in the world are still wrangling with the very same posers?

He loves to play with his thoughts, unfortunately plaet, lb, eb et al don't have time for such. Lol.

But apparently real life PHD scientists and professors have lots of time for such!

Logicboy03:

What am I not aware of?

Pls inform me........I am interested to see how you lie your way out of this one

- - - >

Deep Sight: . . . . various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to. . .

Logicboy03: False.

I answered your op head on.

Guy, you are reaping what you sowed.

No my friend, you have not addressed anything. You wasted your time writing what you wrote. The OP it self was an introduction for a discussion. That's why it contained those extracts. You hardly needed to argue against those extracts because the extracts themselves as well as the pages they were culled from already made suggestions about possible answers and theories.

Besides, the answers you gave were non-answers. You pretty much said that mammary glands don't fossilize well and as such there would be no material to study, and then you went on to say that at all events the se.xes and se.xual reproduction arose from evolution, and even if the answers as to how so, were not available now, this nonetheless remains true and the answers would be found in the future.

How is this an argument? It is not. You have said nothing: and you have still missed the core issues giving rise to those extracts as an introduction to the discussion.

The posers which you need to address are contained in the list of 12 Questions which I laid out on the first page of this thread. THOSE are the posers for which the OP was an abstract intro. THOSE are the posers you need to address. I have pointed you back to them for guidance twice now, but, like the others, you're still scaredy catty. I even told you to take just the first two as a starting point, so that you could understand the real questions. But nothing.

It's okay.

Logicboy03: ^^^^

All the epistle you can write in the world wont change the foolishness in the op you wrote.

Claiming that evolution is flawed because biologists note that they need to do more research the evolution of mammary glands.


You might as well say that space doesnt exist because scientist can not fully explain dark matter.


lol

Quite clear that you haven't read any of the articles, and are not even aware of any of the current theories on the matter, otherwise you would not make this s.illy comment.

PS: Besides, the "epistle" is directed specifically at the suggestion that only the ignorant would raise such posers.

Logicboy03: Deepsight getting schooled


Erm, here is a good advice for you, Deepsight

https://www.quickmeme.com/img/6a/6a4df6031e2b95e9387dd0fefe9ac4f2a725f332553cf476f707a9f3e06936f8.jpg

plaetton: OMG!
Logicdude, you are lethal.
Where did you get this from?.
May I have your permission to reuse it here on Nl when the bullshyts threaten my senses?

Evil Brain: But the parrot pigeon always wins.

. . . . And it is just our motley group of eminently "enlightened" scientific thinkers, who cannot make a single response to the posers raised - who now spend their time on same thread posting these puerile laughable images in supposed mockery?

This was once reserved only for Olaadegbu.

Pitiful.

@ Evil Brain, I must point out a few things to you, but first some comments on this post -

Evil Brain: Nonsense. Darwin didn't write any ignorant diatribes against the evolution of sëxual reproduction or any another topic. He was an extremely serious scientist, and when he set out to debunk a theory, you could bet your āss that he'd first learn everything there was to know about it before opening his mouth in public. If you don't believe, read his Descent of Man and see the way he tore the ynashes those who claimed that white people were a seperate, higher species than blacks and other “savages".

If you want to disprove a theory, you first have to learn what the theory actually is, how it was arrived at, and what its recognized flaws are. Yet from his very first post, he has revealed his almost total ignorance of the topic, to the point that he was actually quoting Wikipedia (lol!) as proof that evolution is flawed!

It is most irritating to see scientific pretenders to seriousness always use this line. I mean the "you-must-not-refer-to-Wikipedia-or-you-are-not-a-serious-discussant" line. It is most irritating for the following reasons ->

1. Wikipedia is a perfectly handy and immediately accessible on-line resource

2. Wikipedia articles on academic issues are open to challenge and correction by experts all over the world and this reinforces the reliability of many of the academic articles on that site.

3. Wikipedia Articles on academic matters cite expert resources, research work, and peer reviewed scientific papers as authorities for virtually every statement made, with footnotes as links to such resources.

4. Wikipedia Articles which contain statements without references or authorities or confirmation are clearly marked "not confirmed", "needs review," "needs clean up", "needs verification" etc.

5. Each time a person edits or changes information on a Wikipedia Article, such a change is not submitted into the global server directly, it goes into a process to be checked before that is done. As such, that person will see the change on his own computer, but others will not, until it is globally loaded.

6. You can create a topic about yourself on Wikipedia, and no one may bother to challenge it because no one knows you or cares anyway. However you cannot create or edit a major and significant academic or scientific topic on Wikipedia (such as on the Big-Bang or on Evolution) WITHOUT having such triple checked and challenged by hundreds of academic experts all over the world. This is a fact.

7. This is Nairaland: not a university hall where a doctorate thesis is being defended: it is thus a board for casual discussion: there cannot be anything wrong in making such a reference in casual discussions.

8. Whether I source information from Wikipedia, Harvard university, or my pit latrine: the chief consideration should be if the information is correct; and not mere derision that it came from Wikipedia or my pit latrine. If my pit latrine is able to provide solid academic authorities for the information it presents, what then can you say? The Wikipedia article I cited provided solid references and authorities for their statements. Indeed, where they stated that there is scientific controversy in some areas, it is exactly because there are in circulation conflicting ideas on these matters. Or is that false?

For these reasons your mockery on account of Wikipedia references is misjudged, ill-thought out and completely out of place. It is also presumptuous.

What deep sight is doing is like trying to prove that elephants don't exist without ever seeing a picture of one, or even having a clue what they look like. If you do that on a public forum, then other people are going to reply and make you look stupîd.

He only has himself to blame.

I am not interested in your thoughts on my apparent stu.pidity: you may not be familiar with me but I am notoriously thick skinned in that regard: I do not post on this board with any interest in anybody's perception of my intelligence or st.upidity or both: I do not earn my livelihood based on such; and if I ever gave a hoot, I would not open half the threads I have opened, for I am almost all the time on the other side of conventional wisdom, thinking, or science. That would not be the case if I gave a hoot about validation from any Tom, D1ck or Harry.

What I would however wish to point out to you is this.

1. You have NOT made any response whatsoever to the issues raised. All you did was mention a few well known biological terms and wonder if the writer of the OP had acquainted himself with those terms and conclude (without knowing) that the writer had not, and was therefore not competent to raise the queries. This is all that you did: nothing more and nothing less. You did not, and you have not in anyway addressed anything raised whatsoever. However I concede to you that choosing not to address the issues is of course your prerogative, and you may not have the time or interest in such, especially where you have concluded that it is just ignorance.

AND VERY IMPORTANTLY:

2. You have inferred by your statements that only one who is ignorant of the scientific answers to these posers, would raise such posers. This is very very wrong and very very false. It is very wrong and false for the exact reason that these posers are indeed raised and hotly debated by the very best experts in the fields of microbiology and neurobiology, professors and people with doctoral degrees in these sciences from the best universities in the world.

Your suggestion is that one who is acquainted with the science of the matter would not raise such posers: this is clearly false: for these same posers are raised by the most knowledgeable scientists in the relevant fields.

This shows that the posers are not mis-footed: and also that raising them is not an ignorant thing to do, but a legitimate line of inquiry and debate, however you choose to delude yourself to the contrary. In your very mis-footed presumptuousness, you not only missed this fact, but were so presumptuous as to conclude immediately that I am a born again Christian. This shows just how thoughtless, careless and presumptuous you are in your thinking.

I posted an article in which two PHD microbiologists/ neurobiologists made contentions against evolution based on the same posers I raised here. I will just leave you with a list of their references to other scientists, and anyone can see whether or not these guys are ignorant, or whether they have not considered all the available theories and arguments on the matter, before raising same posers -

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Bell, Graham, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 19, 1982.
[2] Bell, Ref. 1, p. 54.
[3] Ridley, Mark, The Cooperative Gene, The Free Press, New York, pp. 108,111, 2001.
[4] Schecter, Julie, How Did Sex Come About?, Bioscience, 34:680, December 1984.
[5] Crow, J.F., The Importance of Recombination, The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas, ed. Michod and Levin, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 35, 1988. /
[6] Crow, Ref. 5. /
[7] Eldredgen Niles and Joel. Cracraft, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology, Columbia Universiy Press, New York, p.102, 1980. /
[8] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[9] Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998. /
[10] Crow, Ref. 5, p. 60. /
[11] Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine, Evolution, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p. 391, 1977. /
[12] Williams, George C., Sex and Evolution: in the Monographs in Population Biology series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975. /
[13] Zimmer, Carl, Parasite Rex, The Free Press, New York, p. 163, 2000. /
[14] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen Viking, London, p. 254, 1993. /
[15] Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson, On Behalf of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 18. /
[16] Zimmer, Carl, Ref. 10, p. 163. /
[17] Cartwright, John, Evolution and Human Behavior, Macmillan, London, p. 96, 2000. /
[18] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, p. 87, 1977. /
[19] Van Valen, Leigh, A New Evolutionary Law, Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30, 1973. /
[20] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 97. /
[21] Bernstein, H., F.A. Hopf, and R.E. Michod, The Evolution of Sex: DNA Repair Hypothesis, The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, ed. C. Rasa and E. Voland, Chapman and Hall, London, p. 4, 1989. /
[22] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[23] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen, Viking, London, 1993. /
[24] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[25] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[26] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[27] Maddox, John, Ref. 6, p. 252. /
[28] Maddox, Ref. 6, p. 253. /
[29] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 109. /
[30] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[31] Zimmer, Carl, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 230, 231, 2001. /
[32] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, pp. 108-109. /
[33] Ward, Peter, Future Evolution, Henry Holt, New York, p. 153, 2001. /
[34] Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York, p. 98, 2001. /
[35] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[36] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[37] Crow, J.F., The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386, 1997. /
[38] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[39] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, New York, p. 176, 2000. /
[40] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Ref. 15, pp. 88,103,107. /
[41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. /
[42] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 103. /
[43] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 104. /
[44] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 291, 1997. /
[45] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Ref. 41, p. 293. /
[46] Ackerman, Jennifer, Chance in the House of Fate, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 48-49, 2001. /
[47] Ackerman, Jennifer, Ref. 43, p. 115. /
[48] Thomas, Lewis, The Medusa and the Snail, Viking, New York, pp. 155-157, 1979. /
[49] Hoffman, Banesh, Albert Einstein, New American Library, p. 73. /

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Discussed in the paper are various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to, with a link I posted for them, asking them to go through these theories and point out answers to my posers therein. It was a challenge which nobody took up.

With the above, it is obvious who is ignorantly grandstanding and make puerile assumptions.

Nuff said!

Joshthefirst: Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit

Superbly said.

I wonder why DS didn't just ignore your ramblings.

For the sake of posterity; for the sake of tomorrow.

^^^ A testament indeed - with the untouched, un-attempted and unanswered posers still sitting pretty on the first page.

Unschooled, lazy, cowards.

Logicboy03: Deepsight....the challenge is now in your hands....answer your posers.

What cowardly criminality! ! ! !

plaetton: You don't know how silly that sounds.
So, no NL atheists , no scientist, no one knows for sure WHY cells self-replicate.
And therefore ....?

So no one knows or can answer why we have the universe instead of nothing.
And therefore...?

Gosh!

This is cardinal because entire theories, which people like you endorse as inviolable truth, are founded on statements like this; which scientists then eternally use as the explanation for everything else:

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

Sometimes I do wish to write epistles explaining such simple things and why they are problems: however I must say that I am often discouraged by the knowledge from experience that even 1 million pages of explanations will fall on determinedly and willfully deaf ears.

Just take a look at that statement in quote just above from the link I placed below it. That statement is the fundamental assumption on which ALL of this is built: explanations of how the reproduction occurs are then contrived (many different theories, including your nonsense on polarity -which by the way does not appear among any serious studies as an explanation or option) - and based on that fundamental assumption, which is taken for granted, stories are built.

This is why I began my posers with the very simple - even simplistic question - as to why living things are self replicating at all. Scientific explanations are all hinged on the assumption of this need: and they never - absolutely never - say anything on why this need is there: and what makes living things have this need in the first place.

Of course, there would be no process of evolution without self replication occurring, and it is therefore easy to see why evolutionists would completely avoid the question as to how evolution explains self replication - because, without an answer to that, they know that the credibility of the principles of the whole theory is called into question.

My dear, I cannot, and do not have an iota of respect for all the pathetic nonsense which has been said on this thread by you atheists, until and unless one of your number is bold enough to tackle the posers head-on.

It is laughable for you all to attempt to render the posers as irrelevant: when this remains a huge contention within the very learned of the scientific community!

Logicboy03: Lol....talking as if he is not asking these questions to put forward the claim that God did it.

smh

And of course your reading is not keen enough to see where and where I have argued that indeed, it is possible that God did not design this world.

I am certain you have problems thinking, or following structured discussions.

wiegraf: Godidit

Happy?

Because you use bigger English this stops being Godidit? What are you whining about? I have to deal with your puerile logic, therefore puerile replies. (Tbf, I stopped giving them any proper attention a while back. Special pleading for us the special species. Blanlablavljf. It is nonsense good sir)
What are you even on about with the teo? last I checked, it was very much a work in progress. But perhaps we should abandon that and just conclude; Godidit. Because we're special.

We aren't. This is simply religitard logic rebranded as something else. Tell me why your god designed sexes? As a programmer with abilities to play god, eg the ability to endow a level playing field and 'freewill', I fail to see why I'd put gender in the mix, especially involuntary sort. Methinks the solution to whatever peeve you have is in there. And also, if you will, tell why he bothered to define sexes yet designed such a dangerous, inefficient reproductive system? Or do you choose to acknowledge 'design' that confirms your bias? Really?

Daft. Address the Posers, Dimwit.

And o: I have since forgone any hope of reading any sense from you: not since you argued that you would not correct your child for stealing because morality is subjective, et all: I hardly read anything you write. You are a quaint and random f.ool, of course.

plaetton: @Truthislight

His craft is the clever use of words to obfuscate facts. Get you carried away by theirverbal sophistry while ignoring relevant facts.

The relevant facts which you have so far failed to point out, even where you raised the dubious issue of polarity, got called out on, and ran away from? You are dubiously criminal, dishonest, and worse, cowardly. Your conduct is actually shameful.

These dubious posers are for whom, if I may ask, and for what purpose?

Never ask for whom the bells toll: they toll for thee.

None of you can even wrap your heads around the simple issue as to why any living organism should be self replicating in the first place. None of you: and no; this is not, and has never been addressed by any scientist.

And yet, this is only one of 12 posers: not a single one of which has been addressed by any of the d.aft loud mouthed atheistic blabbers here.

rationalmind: Will that be too much from a book inspired by God to be used by men including generations yet unborn?

Will that be too much to ask from a quran you just said probably discussed the big bang?

If it can discuss the big bang, why not Quantum Mechanics.

Please I did not say that the Quoran discussed the Big-Bang. I said that the interpretation of the Muslim poster was "more plausible" than yours. And that is true. Your characterization of the "heavens" as the earth's sky atmosphere only, is most dubious, especially when there are so many references to the stars in the heavens. The stars are not within earth's atmosphere, are they?

My exact words -

I think the Muslim poster has a more plausible interpretation that you do. "Heavens" certainly does not mean the earth's atmospheric sky in that context

Second point: You asking that the bible ought to have discussed quantum physics is beyond absurd on soooo many levels. It even misses teh trajectory of scripture as being concerned with the spiritual salvation of mankind.

Third point: There are many scriptures that could easily be "interpreted" as inferring quantum principles, if you wish to force the issue. It would only be a question of literary licence with interpretation.

But really, you are walking a meaningless path with this. . . . bible should have discussed quantum physics, lol.

Mr Troll: All those religious books were written by ancient men who had much lesser knowledge than we have today about our world.

Well, if nothing else, it certainly seems they could write better than you can.

^^^ The bible ought to have discussed quantum physics?

You have lost it man!

mazaje: What we know is science , what we don't know is god. . .

Mr Troll: Deepsight how do you make the leap from, Evolution cannot explain this to therefore a more intelligent blah blah caused it?

Is that not magical thinking? Like I said before, your argument is simply an argument from ignorance and as usual, a pathetic attempt at appeal to emotions.

Muskeeto has said this before, as long as we don't jnow somethings in this universe, the god fans will always have something to say. God is always the tent where all our ignorance is stored.

Seriously man, shut up. Yes, evolution cannot explain some things but it's not a license to sneak in your immutable, infinite space time, ultimate mind god.

Until you can show proof of your god, don't sneak it in to any gap in knowledge. Arrogant tw.at!

What on earth is wrong with you fellas?

Who said a word about God on this thread? ? ? ?

Questions are raised and you spin into an anti-God frenzy? ? ? ? LOL!

Can't deal with the posers, and only whining? Pathetic.

^^^ You dont even stop to read. I did not refer you to another thread. I referred you to the 12 posers I wrote for the first time on THIS thread. Here they are again -

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction#20521482

I wrote those on the first page of this very thread, and not another previous thread.

And I asked you to start with the first two posers only, before proceeding to the rest.

As to the articles, if you cannot read them, then we can never have a discussion on the issues.

And by the way, you have caricatures of what I contend up there. I don't have the time or energy to correct them if you cannot read that which I offered. It will be a waste of my time.

Logicboy03: You subscribe to the theory and yet, you claim that it is flawed. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU SAID THAT EVOLUTION IS FLAWED. Sorry, you dont understand either what a flaw is or what the theory of evolution is.




No, just more honest and intelligent than you





What? Are you seriously questioning the development of mammary glands? It is like questioning why we have toes instead of fingered feet.

We do know that positioning the "milk factory" in some other places (instead of a gland for it) would lead to easy contamination with other liquids in the body. Just as having fingered feet would make for better grasping and swinging compared to better walking with toes.....

You are talking about things which you clearly have no idea about. What the hell is "separate evolution" for se.xes"? There are organisms that reproduce ase.xually- Why is that more logical or "evolutionary" than sex.ual reproduction? The simple answer would be that different reproductive systems are suited for different organisms and their different environments/habitats.


Sir, I fail to see how your questions somehow expose a flaw in the theory of evolution. Guy, sit down.





Shut up. What I clearly said was that the fact that evolution cant explain a certain issue doesnt mean that the theory is flawed. The theory is sound at what it is centered on.

You confuse the theory of evolution with using evolution as a subject to explain something.

BTW, you have given no flaws so far in the theory of evolution.



Yeah right. smh




SMH




SMH



You pointed out no contradictions...all you did was expose your ignorance.


For instance, some organisms evolve into smaller organisms while some evolve into larger ones. Anti-scientific dullards like you claim that it is a contradicti0on

I see your only response to the link I offered you was a very erudite "Yeah right, smh"

Bravo.

If you cannot read it, and address my 12 posers (try the first and 2nd, I repeat) - then I have no need to waste my time with you.

^^^ It still finds place in interpretation. Would Allah have written all the chemical equations into the Quaran? Come on. He could only express it in Arabic poetry, and that's enough!