₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: And this reeks of desperation. So many basic mistakes..

Alfa Seltzer: Here it is again: In red this time so you can't claim you missed it. It is logical and beneficial for a unicellular organism to evolve into a multicellular one in order to avoid or overcome a predator.

plaetton: Any experiment that involves artificially simulating a rare and an uncommon environmental condition is bound to be imperfect.
Ofcourse it was not perfect, but it was a small step in the right direction , in that it showed plausibility.

It confirmed the plausibility of a far-fetched idea. That was the small success of the experiment irrespective of the technical limitations of the experiment.
The scientific process measures and advances with tiny successes one at a time.

So, to answer your question, it actually reinforced my position.

The experiment made me to expand my mind to the possibility that the first protolife could have possibly arisen under same or different conditions in another planet, or star system with different gravity and different electromagnetic conditions.

Chrisbenogor: All,

For the Against Side:[/b]
1. What exactly are the points you agree with evolution on (most especially @deepsight) maybe the discussion would be better if you say the things you agreed on and then the things you dispute.

Then the real areas of contention can be narrowed down to
- If these are grounds to dismiss the whole theory/fact/whatever evolution is. (i.e if evolution cannot explain the eye for instance then the whole theory should be discarded despite any other evidence out there in favour of the theory)
- If you agree that some parts of it are correct but needs to be redefined or become more inclusive.

wiegraf: @op, I thought you opened a new thread on the morality/animal issue, or was I mistaken?

Alfa Seltzer: If you knew how many biblical words are censored on Nairaland, you'll be amazed that people wave that accursed book around proclaiming it holy.

ooman: or the answer you aren't expecting...

ooman: @Deepsight.. you know, 150 years ago, the question creationists were asking evolutionists were questions like secret of life and heredity, chemical bonding and space existence ...now that evolution has answered that, you all left that and shifted to origin of life and universe.

well wallow in that a little bit more till those answers are found and then what will you shift to?

its just so pitiful that your beliefs are based on your ignorance....

only a fool, who has no answers mock those who look for answers...

this maximum stu.pid.dity of yours should therefore be overlooked as foolish words of a fool.

davidylan: What happened? As usual so much noise and our dear atheists who crow about logic and science all day cannot answer a simple 1 of 12 questions? What a crying shame.

plaetton: Good post?

I shake sadly as I witness the descent of Deepsight.

plaetton: @Deepsight.

Once more, I have slowly gone through your so-called posers that you have been gloating about.
Once again, I can honestly tell you they do not reflect the lofty level of your intellect.
So, I begin to wonder what your motive was.

If you were sincerely in need of answers to the questions,you would have found them within minutes.
The simple answers to your so-called posers are so abundant, that any junior high school student can find them with a twinkle of an eye.

This is the information age. There are very few mysteries in your so-called posers.
Just go to google, just go to wikipaedia, just go to the science section of your public library.
Stop seeing mysteries where none exist.
Seek and you shall find. That is the mantra of our new era.

I am loathe to think that you are ignorant or that you are lazy.
So I think that your overly verbose and fantasy-laden write-up was more like an attempt to camoflouge your own confusion about evolution, while at the same time, ambush your perceived atheist enemies.
Akin to something that a fearful defence lawyer would present to an ill-informed jury.

It goes like this.
"Let me give the atheists a big assignment, and if they cannot quickly finish the assignment, therefore...... atheists dont know all about evolution, and if that is so, then the entire atheist's worldview is ......wrong".

Right?

The new face of Anonyism. lol
You have learnt much from our resident spin miester.

Now, if you are unable to find the answers to these posers on your own, and you are sincere about it, I will volunteer to give you a lengthy bulletin and summary of evolution, from which you can put 2 and 2 together( as I am sure you are capable), and answer the questions yourself.

The only cavaet is that you have to tell us, in some detail, your understanding of how evolution works.
That way, I can assist you patch up the leaking aspects of your knowledge on the subject.

Until then , be Silent!

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


Any more questions deepsight?

plaetton: Davidylan.
You are an Enigma. You should be the bearing the Handle "Enigma" in Nairaland, not my other irredeemable detractor presently bearing the title.
lol .

You, Davidylan, if you were the scientist that you claim that you are would have easily dismissed those so-called posers with a casual wave of the hand.
The so-called posers are soooo elementary, that anyone, I mean anyone who has taken a first year university course in biology should enjoy a good laugh at the ignorance of those who for some very strange reasons, actually oppose the scientific theory of evolution as it was a rival political ideology or religion.

I have been deliberately dismissing the posers because I figured that they are too elementary, and I wanted, asked , urged and begged Deepsight to explain what , if anything at all, that he understood and accepted about the theory of evolution.
But like the brilliant lawyer that he is , he probably assumed that I was trying to trap him into a dark hole from which he would have found quite difficult to dissentagle.

Below is the one of the major posers deepsight has been harping on.

If you, as phd scientist, cannot volunteer to answer these questions for Deepsight, then you are dishonest.
If you, as a phd scientist, do not know the simple answers to these questions, then , I'm sorry, I dont know where to place you.
In your own words, you are confused about the bible and the biblical fairy tales(your own words) that you so much love to defend, and here now, you cannot stand by the scientific calling which you also claim to posses.
You are a very confused fellow.
You are an Enigma.




10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

DrummaBoy: @Deep Sight

Has this discuss been abandoned?

plaetton: " These [size=20pt]in turn[/size] would organize themselves into living cells".


Where is the lie?

Alfa Seltzer:

Alfa Seltzer: What is life?

Alfa Seltzer: Well, that's what the fool (loveoftruth) you were praising was insinuating.

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

plaetton: It might be delusion if I had anything to protect or fight for.
Infact, scientific ideas are not under any threat because they can always be revised.
You are the one who is in trouble because your absolute truths will always be under attack.

It does not matter to me that Abiogenesis is not perfect. It is imperfect because there are too much that are unknown.
You dont throw away the baby with the bath water. The basic idea is very relevant and shows plausibility.

Science involves a patchwork of different ideas.
Does that fact elude you?

Exactly where do you throw your lot?
Plausible ideas or fantasies?.

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: It is apparent that saying you believe in evolution whilst being skeptical of abiogenesis and common descent is what plaetton jests you for. That said I think it's better to state that one disbelieves evolution if he/she doesn't accept abiogenesis (has I'd sympathies) and disbelieves universal common ancestry. I'll expatiate.

A correct and broad definition of evolution is the change in a population over successive generations or the change in allele frequency. I would be the last to dispute that since it's very obvious. What lacks proper basis is common ancestry and abiogenesis. A quick word on abiogenesis: Evolutionists fraudulently seperate the two when arguing but they are in fact much intertwined. There is an ongoing effort to merge abiogenesis and evolution into a general theory of evolution, it is most evident from the title of Darwin's book that a theory that explains how species diversify needs to explain how they originate in the first place and for a long time evolutionists invoke natural selection and mutation as the method which the first proto-life became an acutual cellular organism. Julius Rebek once proposed a form of pre-biological mutation in which a proto-lifeform incorporated other chemicals and natural selection filtered out the best. Cdk007 in his abiogenesis video on YouTube beguiles many people by illustrating the same. The flaw in this posit is OBVIOUS to a thinking person.
I, YEC's, OEC's and ID theorists do believe in a form of common ancestry. This is not recent and has been for centuries now. Even some Christians supported Darwin because a level of common ancestry was evident. If I recall well Linnaeus (the taxonomist) or some other Christian scientist advocated the fixity of species which is quite fraudulently attributed to YEC's especially today. The YEC's model is what I subscribe to (some ID'sts like Behe and Sternberg subscribe to universal common ancestry which I think is nonsense). YEC's believe there were specific created kinds inbuilt with VIGE (variation-inducing genetic elements) which help the species occupy various ecological niches over time. So Darwin's finches, for example, involved a robust ancestral genome which was 'multifested' in the unique finches drawn in biology textbooks. This is NOT a basis for UCA because there are limits to what it can take, except in the evolutionary fairytale land. Of course, you are dealing with people who believe, like their forbear, that ungulates like cows and hippos (that forbear said bears opening their moths to catch fish) evolved to be whales and dolphins that inhabit marine habitats. Case in point, it is well-known in taxonomy for a long time certain 'species' interbreed. Funny though, some descendant species don't naturally interbreed (at least not usual enough) and some that descend from can't be interbred (artificial insemination fails to work) as in certain 'species' of fruit-flies cultured in the lab. A good example of VIGE's acting is in dog. These species have been selectively bred for centuries very likely from an ancestral species like African wild dogs or a genus of wolf. From Boerbaels to Daschunds, from Saint-Bernards to chihuahuas and yet they are a single variation of species, why because no matter how strongly they are bred for certain traits they don't evolve an entirely new trait TRULY NOVEL to their genome (I say truly novel cuz some fraudsters point at certain mutations eg drooping ears in dogs as novel where they involve loss-of-function mutation). Greyhound for instance are strongly bred for speed and despite massive selection pressure for traits that enhance it don't graudually (or punctually) grow hooves and extremely muscular torsos.

After all is said, what evolutionsists want is that you eat the story hook, line and sinker. If you differ with the aspects of the theory mentioned and in paricular the ability of random mutation and NS to drive evolutionary change you don't believe in evolution. At least, not the mainstream version.

Good evening.

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

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

plaetton: The one I cut and pasted and from which you quoted.

I don tire for you!.
Na wa

Alfa Seltzer: You dodging my question?

Alfa Seltzer: 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.

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

plaetton: " These in turn would organize themselves into living cells".
If you dont know what that means, then It seems that I have greatly overestimated something.
What it means is that these proteins, over eons of time, through an series of infinite micro-processes, would eventually organize themselves, as laid out by the theory of abiogenesis, into living cells.

Where is the lie?