₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
LoLz. You are referring to your self since clearly the facts show you are wrong. But instead of accepting you double down with nonsense. Why is competition not making sickle cell and diabetes to disappear? What of heart disease and inherited cancer clsusceptibilities why is competition not making them disappear? Stop being stubborn for once in your life and attempt to understand.

LordReed, how many times will I call you. Google is FREE. PLEASE, go and educate yourself. Not for myself or anybody, but just so you won't be making a fool of yourself!

LordReed:
WRONG AGAIN. They are not selected for, the traits are part of the organisms that survive. Natural selection is NOT DIRECTING which traits are selected. Traits both good and bad continue to carry forward as long as the organisms survive. Sickle cell continues to survive in the population because humans carrying the gene continue to survive. Dude YOU ARE WRONG. Accept it and get a better understanding of natural selection.

Sometimes I wonder if you folks don't do even rudimentary Google search. That's all you need to see that everything you said here is wrong.
Just google:
"Do traits both good and bad continue to carry forward in natural selection"
Then come and tell.us what you found

LordReed:
You are the one having trouble grasping it. It's not magic nor is it some kind of cookie cutter that produces exact copies. You could not explain the facts I pointed out to you based on your own understanding because YOU ARE WRONG. You can't explain why diabetes is INCREASING based on your understanding because YOU ARE WRONG. You can't explain why the longest lived animals are not the most populous based on your understanding because again YOU ARE WRONG. I can explain all these based on natural selection because I AM RIGHT.

Do I have to spoonfeed? Can't you infer the answers from my post to you and FRANCISTOWN.
Here it is again. Tell me how it doesn't answer all your questions:


Ridiculous. Someone CLEARLY told you what he meant and you are still arguing! It is like someone says "let X be 2, 3+X=5" and your reply is "X is not 2"!!😆

Besides that, it is not just by reaching a certain age. Merely surving will not guarantee reproduction. You have to be "rich" enough to get a fertile mate (competition), and vibrantly healthy enough and fertile enough yourself to reproduce.

But not only that, due to competition, over generations the sickly will disappear though they live more than long enough to reproduce

LordReed:
If you can show that love for broccoli was inherited via genetic heritage then it is not a habit.

So FRANCISTOWN you are wrong - healthy food tastes and exercise are indeed inheritable traits

LordReed:
I mean you are wrong.

You are obviously the one wrong. I don't know why you have trouble grasping a theory so simple.
It is NOT complicated, no matter how much you try to make it seem so

LordReed:
LoLz. You have a very flawed conception of what natural selection is. It's not magic. The sickly will still survive as along as they have a chance to reproduce which is what we see happening in nature. Your idea that only the strong and health survive is a fiction either of your own making or flat out misconception from a poor understanding. Educate yourself and stop making arguments for something you clearly lack understanding of.

It is your own conception that is CLEARLY FLAWED.
It is NOT individuals that survive or are selected for, it is TRAITS! Over millions of years beneficial traits survive (are selected for) while non-beneficial ones disappear

LordReed:
It does you just don't understand what it entails. It is not selecting for anything. Environmental and other pressures determine which organisms survive and how they change. You think it's some magic force determining that the organisms with the best traits become the only Survivors which is flat out wrong.

Confusing post. What do you mean?

PoliteActivist:
Well said and well written, good example too.
Sooo you accept that:
1) Humans were DESIGNED to hate whats good for their health and longevity. If not, where did that come from?
2) Where did lions liking raw meat, and goats liking grass come from?
3) LordReed and JessicaRabbit, do you agree with him that those are habits, not heritable traits?

LordReed I answered your question. You still haven't answered mine

LordReed:
LoLz. Now youswitched from longevity to reproductive problems. What you fail to consider is as long as a significant portion of diabetic patients still SUCCESSFULLY reproduce then the susceptibility continues to propagate. Besides the incidence of diabetes is INCREASING not decreasing.

Which is exactly the point - natural selection theory often doesn't pan out in real life.
But in this case you're actually wrong - even if diabetics don't reproduce, people pass on the gene without being diabetic themselves

FRANCISTOWN:
Nope! A human being can reproduce at 14. Would that mean such human has enjoyed longevity?
I[b][/b]n fact, we'd day the person dies prematurely.

Longevity in the events of humans begins from 80 years upward.

Therefore reproduction stage and longevity are different.
I also talked about organisms that die immediately after reproduction.

LordReed:
Explain why the longest lived animals are not the most populous.

Ridiculous. Someone CLEARLY told you what he meant and you are still arguing! It is like someone says "let X be 2, 3+X=5" and your reply is "X is not 2"!!😆

Besides that, it is not just by reaching a certain age. Merely surving will not guarantee reproduction. You have to be "rich" enough to get a fertile mate (competition), and vibrantly healthy enough and fertile enough yourself to reproduce.

But not only that, due to competition, over generations the sickly will disappear though they live more than long enough to reproduce

LordReed:
Your definition is nothing but equivocation. Nevertheless, explain how diabetes prevents someone from living long enough to reproduce.

You obviously haven't done your research (as usual )

In men it can cause problems getting and maintaining an erection, and also lower levels of testosterone.
In women it can result in irregular or absent menstrual cycles, and also increase the risk of miscarriage and still birth.

JessicaRabbit:
Stop sounding like a fanatic. Read my posts to understand them, not just make up a response. I already showed you that your claim of atheism being somehow less "beneficial" than theism reeks of subjectivity. You're essentially proposing that the Christian worldview and its perceived benefits are universally applicable, which is about as scientific as claiming the Earth is flat. My sense of fulfillment and purpose doesn't hinge on the existence of a deity, and suggesting otherwise is both presumptuous and disrespectful to the diverse range of values and experiences that define individuals. You must understand this single fact, else I don't see the point of continuing this discussion if you'll just ignore what I'm saying and come back only to keep repeating yourself. Secondly, your practical example relies heavily on stereotypes and generalizations. You paint a picture of an uninformed atheist suddenly experiencing an epiphany and then flocking to an organized religion, solely for societal advantages. This narrative not only ignores the vast spectrum of reasons behind individuals' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) but also reduces complex choices to a mere "what's in it for me?" mentality. Your naive assumption that I, or any atheist, would automatically experience a surge in social life, romantic prospects, and societal trust solely by embracing a specific religion is nothing short of ludicrous. What about the countless examples of atheists who thrive in various social spheres and garner respect based on their merits, not their faith? Are the experiences of those atheists too inconvenient for your dodgy narrative?

Fighting religion is not a "foolish fight". You are only betraying your fundamental misunderstanding of the role of critical thinking in a healthy society, as well your ignorance of the historical and ongoing social progress fueled by secular movements. Questioning established norms and challenging authority, whether religious or otherwise, is (and always has been) a cornerstone of intellectual growth and social progress. It will do you a measure of good to actually address the core tenets of atheism, instead of relying on a series of fallacies and strawmen.

P.S. You need to chill out with your incessant quoting of monikers. You should have realized by now that majority of the people you're quoting do not wish to partake in this conversation, so your constant tagging, apart from constituting an unnecessary nuisance, is also a tad disrespectful. Seeing your mentions make me feel dizzy because I'm not sure which posts I should (or shouldn't) respond to.

P.P.S Stick to screenshots instead of copying and pasting lengthy articles from the web. It could help with your constant bans.

(JessicaRabbi, this is a quick response. I'll reply you more fully when I have time)

For the record, I have not ONCE copied and pasted ANYTHING from the web on this thread.
I have never been banned for anything you mentioned. The bans are probably due to technical glitches of some sort that don't follow any logical pattern. I post long epistles and don't get banned, then get banned for an innocuous one-paragraph post!

You keep talking about fallacies when you are the one full of logical fallacies. Did anyone ever say there are no benefits to being an atheist? Or that there are no atheists that lead fulfilling lives? The discussion is: all things being equal, which is MORE beneficial in our reality and society!!

And you keep talking subjectivity.
Life itself is subjective!
Infact, you can say we all live in different worlds though we are physically in same world. I think that is the greatest hidden flaw of the human mind that we are unaware of - assuming everybody experiences reality same way we do.

Folks, please note, I will soon have the result and conclusion of the debate - who won and why.
So far religionists have an edge. There are too many questions atheists can't answer. The only ones religionists can't answer is, WHY their particular religion is the right one, and WHY did creation suddenly start whenever it started.

FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022, LordReed, Jaephoenix, JessicaRabbit, Knownunknown, DeepSight, BBIA HellVictorinho6, SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist, FRANCISTOWN, SIRTee15, Aemmyjah, TheSourcerer,
Busybrain2233, 1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack,
Botragelad, isan, MaxInDHouse, Fourthpredator,
seun, hopefullandlord, bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2,  kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001, Maynthemayn

.

Ok

*

hurryup123:
Enter any of there visitors toilet and break the toilet seat...
Then leave quietly

**

Thugnificent:
Thanks Sis. Try to avoid links next time so as not to draw the attention of the antispambot.
Good morning. I'm greatful for your help the other time

*
Cost of replacing a toilet seat is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to them, less than nothing, meanwhile you have wasted your time and energy and could get caught!

**
Thanks for the advice my dear but it is not from that at all - sometimes it doesn't happen when there are links and happens when no links. Please delete the quoted too. About that, you've thanked me more than enough and you've paid it back. Never knew it would be paid back so quickly

.

Thugnificent:
I just did

Thanks so much. Let me go check it out

.

.

manee2:
sorry..
I don't believe dis faked post

Why? Because it was posted October 2017 and you replied it December 2018?
I'm asking u today which is March 2024, why u doubt the story

.

I just wish this guy well so much
I don't think he's mainly about the money

Thugnificent:
Sure, what is it about sis?

Sorry I was distracted. Thanks 4 your quick response.
I was banned for an hour by antispam bot for posting
something (24 hrs in the particular section). Can you post it for me? If you get banned I'd compensate you

Thugnificent:
Thanks for the words of encouragement sis.
As a matter of fact, i didn't ask him for anything, he volunteered himself but it's all good.

Thanks once again

Ib, can you do me favor?

.

Aemmyjah:
😂

Keep shinning teeth until it happens. It will do you like film

Aemmyjah:
If you like
Tag the whole of NL
NONSENSE

Seun this person is harassing me. He keeps quoting me when I've told him to cease and desist. I just might go nuclear

FRANCISTOWN:
In the Grand Calculus of Evolution, reproduction is far more important than longevity. Though, longevity is also important.

And do not link longevity and survival together. Living organisms do not survive primarily for longevity, but basically for reproduction.

There are organisms that die immediately after reproduction. Has that stopped them from it? No.

What is meant by "longevity" in this instant is: "living long enough and healthy enough to reproduce"

FRANCISTOWN:
It's simple. Because they need a high level of protein to survive which can only be found in animal tissues.

Goats on the other hand cannot digest meat lest they die. Everyone is just trying to survive.

Mind you, you should understand that. Every beast of the field and life in the deep evolved at different times in different environments.

First of all. You need to understand what a cell is. Cells process informations and develop with respect to their environment.

I think you need a crash course on evolution.

So who DESIGNED them to need high levels of protein to survive while goats cannot digest meat? Evolution can't answer that question without fudging ridiculously, neither can it answer why that is not the case with man. It's not as if these animals evolved on different planets!
Neither can evolution explain abiogenesis (non-living things turning into living tnings)

LordReed:
The organism only needs to survive long enough to reproduce. This is why diabetes will still exist, it doesn't stop reproduction. There is no contradiction.

If what you are trying to insinuate were true then the longest lived animals would be the most populous on the planet but fact is its the opposite we find.

They need to survive old enough and healthy enough to reproduce (that's what is meant by longevity) MORE THAN their healthy-eating counterparts. Over millions of years you definitely WON'T have what you have today - almost everyone loving what's bad for them!

Diabetes and other diseases exist because there are mutations and carriers who pass on the gene without experiencing the disease.

Of course you contradicted yourself - "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. That's what natural selection selects for