₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
But DeepSight hasn't rejected TOE completely and so ,why but him in the same category of those majority whom you say has?

Top scientist right from the very beginning till this very moment have been questioning certain parts of the theory not because they reject it but because they want to improve on it, yet you want to suggest it's only those with zero knowledge that challenges it. That's not true.

The thing is that,you are too quick to assume that anyone who challenges some aspect of TOE is a religious person who has already rejected it. A lot of atheist think that way and I call it knee- jerk rejection.

Let me say this for better understanding.

For my friend DeepSight to question or proclaim the inexplicable instincts, he first has obligation to take a deep dive into the subject of protein synthesis, understand it, and then be able to say that the body of accumulated knowledge in protein synthesis and its fundamental link to natural selection and evolution is wrong and incomplete.
You question science with science.

triplechoice:
Finally, scientific theories isn't for picking and choosing, It should be questioned. That's what I said. Any science that cannot be questioned is not science but dogma.

We are 100% in agreement here.
Questions and more questions and more questions is what has gotten us this far in scientific achievements.

But if someone comes here and says if I cannot explain to him or her why Uranus has a retrograde orbit, then all the theories of Gravitational are half truths.
I would gently ask the person to go and study the subject itself.
As you can see, the person asking the question is not sincere about wanting to know the answer.

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

DeepSight:
I dont know why it is so hard for them to admit.



Very well said.



Here you are implying that if one understands the Theory of Evolution properly, then it has no gaps.
This is very wrong - the theory is limited and has profound gaps - which even evolutionary biologists acknowledge.

It's like deja vu all over again.

I think you missed the part in a previous post where I said that TOE is not a complete package. It has never been. Most scientific Theories do not come as a complete package. What it does is set a starting point of our enquiries and understanding.

The truth remains that majority of people who say they reject TOE have either zero or very limited knowledge of its mechanics.
Funny,I confess that as a science student, as was once in that category. I rejected because I didn't want to accept it, not because I had scientifically valid counter Theory.

Everyday247:
What is the meaning of the word "subscribe"?

Do you think it has only one meaning?

I think that it's petty to point out grammatical errors when the meaning is clear.

It was not petty.
You and I know exactly what was meant there.

triplechoice:
Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining their them.

Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

DeepSight:
Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

Science, by it's very nature ,never assumes a position of all-knowing. Science, let me repeat, is an series of questions .
Do we know more about the universe that we did 50yrs ago. We certainly do.
Will we know more in the next 50yrs ? Certainly yes.
If we assume your type of fantasy, speculative fantasy, that there must be underlying intelligence beyond our material understanding of the universe, then we stray from our honest persuit of truth. We introduce a bias, a pseudo- religious bias into our ongoing enquiry.
If is better to start from a position of uncertainty and work towards certainty than it is to go from certainty to uncertainty.

If you think that there are gaps in our understanding of the Theory of evolution, I wonder what you would said about it 150yrs ago .

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.

Well said.
It's like coming Nairaland to hash out the thorny issues of The Theory of Evolution.
This is what I have been to say to him.
But you said it more beautifully.

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 ?

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:
"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.

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:
That's not evolution.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I didn't say that particular instance was evolution.
That's learning and adaptation.

FreeIgboho:
*Please, what have I said about Jesus you don't consider rational?

The first ancestors didn't do the same thing. Very few did. That's why it took millions of years. Example, I'm sure there were humans who never got hungry but of course they quickly died out. Now it seems all humans always got hungry. Nature supplies vast varieties, then through trial and error the "best" traits survive, which makes it seem that's all there ever was or like it was intentionally so from the beginning

Thank you.
Evolution does not go straight to the point where a species attains maximum traits for survival.
It meanders in all directions first until unsuitable traits are weeded out and suitable ones are adopted. Once it hits that 1 in billion lottery, it locks it into the genetic memory, and then seeks the next optimum survival traits.

I watch a tube video about certain experiment with forest monkeys.
According the report, if you teach a few monkeys in a selected portion of the forest a new trick that is beneficial to them,for example, a more efficiently way to pluck out and eat a fruit, in about a week time , the monkeys on the other side of forest would all be using the new skill.

DeepSight:
Its easy to simply just write that. Oh, they evolve the trait for survival.
Have you asked how?

I used two specific examples.
Tell me how exactly the pup knows that there are breasts at all it should seek.
Remember it is new born. It supposedly knows nothing. It has never even seen its mother.

If you say "inbuilt instincts" who or what buillt those instincts.
If you say it was by evolution, how did its ancestors derive that knowledge or instinct as well?

Tell me how exactly the newly hatched turtle knows of the sea. And that it must head there. Remember it is newly hatched.
What did you know two seconds after you were born?

I find it tiresome the way strict materialist evolutionists just use easy language to dismiss real questions. They evolve instincts for survival. I said how, in these instances. Tell how. Its so easy to just say.

Tell how.

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 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.

Every living creature has or should I say, evolves inbuilt instincts to seek whatever is necessary for its survival.
So I'm not sure what you mean by ' inexplicable' .

Do you assume that adding ' inexplicable ' to a trait confers intelligent design or divine provenance to such a trait?

DeadCountry:
Iran said on Tuesday that at least 610 civilians had been k.il.le.d and more than 4,700 wounded in the Islamic Republic since the start of the w@r with Israel on June 13.

“They are all civilians,” health ministry spokesman Hossein Kermanpour said, announcing the increase from the previously reported toll of more than 400 dead and 3,056 wounded.

https://punchng.com/iran-reports-610-deaths-4700-wounded-in-12-days-of-israeli-strikes/


WHO WON THIS WAR IN YOUR OWN ACCESSMENT?

The country that starts the war with an certain
objective can only claim victory when the objective is completed.
If the set objectives are not achieved, then that nation lost the war.
On the other hand, the nation that was attacked and then defended itself and therefore prevented the invading nation from achieving their military objectives has the right to declare itself victorious.

Whereas Israel emerged from the war shell-shocked, confused, military reputation badly wounded,and mocked by the entire world and divided,Iran has gained international sympathy, respect, bolder and united .

Therefore, Iran convincingly won the 12 days war.
W

ObaOfYorubaLand:
I don't know why it's only Yorubas that are wailing for Iran. Isreal no be your mate.

They've achieved their objective of the war without even firing a single missile into Iran, that's how you know a powerful name and not terrorists republic of Iran and Nigeria where human lives are worthless as they kill citizens and civilians with reckless abandon.

They achieved nothing.
In fact, the apartheid enclave only managed to expose the lies and myths that underpined their military strength.

ovie8200:
Then why she is still there? She's suppose to return back to where she came from. Waiting, she's describing them broke because no one spend free money on her so that she go back to Nigeria to form a big girl. Which means she is broke as well.

Exactly. You said it well.
She probably went there expecting to mooch on the sweat of other people.
Her delusions of entitlement is not working out in the UK.

GeneralPula:
Uk

Canada

Both are overrated. USA is the only country that stand alone and better..

Countries like Denmark, Swiss are way better than UK and Canada combined..

Funny that citizens of a failed state are rating the quality of life of foreign countries , which, ironically, their fathers and grandfathers woefully failed to build for their generation.

LadyExcellency:
Life is not just about the amount in your bank account; it's about the quality of life and security, freedom from intimidation, and access to healthcare.

Don't mind the silly girl who has probably not earned an honest living in her life.
She forgot to mention the percentage of the Nigerian population that can barely havd one good meal in a day.
If she was rich in Nigeria, then what exactly is she doing in the UK? Is she conducting a quality of life experiment?

Antoeni:
https://punchng.com/i-nearly-contested-for-president-after-june-12-struggle-soyinka/

I'm not sure this makes any sense at all.

After June 12, there was no democracy in Nigeria until 1999. So I'm wondering undwr which country's democracy did the Prof want to contest for Democracy.
If I remember correctly, the Prof made a little noise, and shortly thereafter, slip out of the country to the US.

Racoon:
13 trillion dollars? I mean how Mr Sanwo-Olu? Meanwhile, where are these investments? Even Nigeria's GDP is not even up to $300B. So how did you arrived at this bogus figure?

Even IMF Have told the FG that it proposed 1T investment drive is not feasible given the abysmal rate the Nigerian economy is progressing. So abeg dey lie small small.

I wonder o 🤔
If Nigeria as a whole had $13 trillion in investments over the last 10 years, Nigeria would be 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world.

Omooba77:
https://tribuneonlineng.com/god-has-revealed-three-persons-who-can-stop-tinubu-in-2027-primate-ayodele/

Nigerian prophets and their silly Gods.

I always say that a God is as silly as the mind that created it.

[quote author=etokhana post=135269637][/quote]Very good one Atiku.
The federal government should lead by example and compel states to do the same.
If all federal government agencies, including the presidency,should buy locally made vehicles, it would add hundreds of billions to the economy, strengthen job creation and strengthen the Naira by saving foreign exchange.
Most importantly, it would set a very strong message that would emulated by the private sector. It would also be a lasting political currency and legacy that the presidency can cash on in future election cycles.

zero8zero:
There's a big difference between storage and hoarding. Half-baked graduates everywhere.

No there is not.
You're obviously not a business person and probably never done any business before.
Every merchant hopes to sell products whenever it is most profitable.
If crayfish is cheapest during the rainy season and most expensive during the dry season, a crayfish merchant would be absolute mor.on not to buy low in the rainy season and sell high during the dry season. This is common sense, this is universal, this practice goes all the way back to the very beginning of commerce in the human march of civilization.

TallNigerian:
You are thieves and deserve all the losses and more. God will continue to punish all of you. Greedy merchants and middlemen. Senseless hoarders.

Every part of the bolded statement reeks of enormous greed, selfishness, wickedness and any other name evil assumes.

Mo.ron.
I guess you were sleeping during basic economics and commerce class in junior secondary school.
If there were no middle mean and merchants to stock and store seasonal foods and grains, malnutrition would have killed you long before you were able to articulate your first thought.

[quote author=TouchNfollow post=135175303]

A Ugandan leader went for cancer treatment in Germany but built a grand church back home when he recovered, not a hospital.

Sam Kutesa even invited President Museveni to open it pic.twitter.com/7nvFza4xKs

— Larry Madowo (@LarryMadowo) April 29, 2025

African leaders.

Was it the Useless church that treated him ?

Why couldn't he have built a hospital or even a cancer screening center .

InfoGuru118:
https://news360ng.com/breaking-court-sentence-late-gospel-singer-osinachis-husband-to-dead-by-hanging/

What a x.ucking zoo.
Nigeria is really really scary.
No wonder Nigerians prayer so much.
Everyone dreads Nigeria happening to them.