₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I seem to have a couple of recalcitrant knuckleheads here. Listen dummies, this is very simple. Nature has no agency it cannot take actions but we describe some of its processes as through an action was taken or a behavior was displayed. Eg. We say a moving stream is running, we say the clouds are pregnant, etc. None of things like this are literal. The stream is not actually running the way an animal with legs can, it merely descriptive. So when I say nature doesn't select I mean it is not taking an action or making a choice with an outcome in mind, it can't. But some how you knuckleheads are all over the place with nonsense especially PoliteActivist Aemmyjah with their constant appeals that indicate no real attempt at understanding.

😆Ok, I'll try to help you save face. Only problem is that your posts are there for all to read - blabbing all over the thread that diabetes and other diseases survive because those carrying them reproduce - pure nonsense!

My good buddy Reed, how many times will I call you?
The end result of natural selection is SELECTION OF CERTAIN TRAITS!
It is assumed everybody knows nature or anybody does not go about looking for traits to select. Nobody figured there'd be people like you who need the obvious spelled out for them. Even Charles Darwin below uses "It may be said" meaning "it's as if". But he didn't even have to use that for people to know what he meant. ONLY people like you would think it meant there is someone or something going about looking for traits to select!

Aemmyjah:
https://www.facebook.com/100061611048887/videos/712473660788607/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

What do you think of the behavior of those frogs ?

A result of an intelligent design or blind chance (chaos)

Science teaches me about God

Very interesting video indeed. You don't have to look deep at all to see there is INTELLIGENT DESIGN to our universe. All you have to do is look at is how mathematics inside physics correlates so well with the natural world. Another thing is the relatively low speed of light being the speed limit of the universe, when there ought be no speed limit at all!

jesusjnr2020:
Are you surprised? If they have chance, they would start shouting, "blasphemy" "blasphemy", and even stone us... That's the Paulians for you.

But what do you make of the fact Lord Jesus said clearly and specifically (if you believe those who wrote it down decades later) that he did not come for you?

jesusjnr2020:
They are following Paul footsteps, because at the time he was doing that, he was so sure of himself that he was

(Moniker Frigga13, no need to be so insulting. How is that Christ-like??)

But St. Paul was INSPIRED by Lord Jesus as to what to write, and he WROTE IT DOWN! He made it clear when he was giving his own opinion.
Christ's own words were written down decades after he said them and NOT by the original hearers. What conversation of 4O years ago do you remember word for word??
Also, remember Lord Jesus made it clear he came for ONLY the house of Israel. It was through Paul that he changed that

fidelmarshal199:
I hate it when these bloggers engage in these conversions of funds, Was he given the money in Naira? is the receiver going to spend the money in Nigeria? Why not report the news with the currency he was given?

Then it won't be so interesting and sensational. That's journalism for you

Aemmyjah:
Olodo will not quote from reliable science references but what he wants to hear
I can use same method to prove to use that Buhari is not real but one Jubrin of Sudan
De play

No mind Reed. See my QED on him above

LordReed:
Dumdum my question was a simple yes or no one. Again, Is the selection in Natural Selection metaphorical or not? Show me how hopeless you are with your answer.

Edit: On review, I have come to see that I have been using the wrong word. I should have been using ANTHROPOMORPHIC not metaphoric.

My once-again defeated buddy Reed and his non sequitur questions.
Whatever you think those words mean, neither "anthropomorphic" nor "metaphoric" applies to natural selection, . "Natural selection" is language coined by a person who then went ahead to say what he meant by it!
Once again, Charles Darwin originated the whole evolution and natural selection thing. Be humble you can't define his own coinage better than him, then carefully STUDY his definition of his own term! Study the four screenshots below.

QED (once again!)

(Wow, you've lost every single discussion we've had!)

FRANCISTOWN:
It all things being equal, then you dey yarn dust.

QED

FRANCISTOWN:
Once we can only understand God thru instinct. Then something is wrong with God. Such God who has something wronged with him is no God at all. Feel me?

And why would God care one bit if extremely insignificant you understand him or not?
Don't you think he would bestow the instinct about himself on whom he wishes, and communicate with whom he selects??

LordReed:
LoLz. Is the selection in Natural Selection metaphorical or not? Show me how hopeless you are with your answer.

Charles Darwin originated the whole evolution and natural selection thing. Be humble you can't define his own coinage better than him, then carefully STUDY his definition of his own term!

FRANCISTOWN:
I no know karate and I no know kungfu. But I get people in the armed forces plus I get plenty area boys. Before you knock me, them don bundle you put you inside drainage. Plus I sabi box die.

I already said you ain't cut out for academics. You should try fishing. Fishing is an enviable "profession".

I can't even deal with your emboldened. My initial battle is, does eating broccoli and not watching TV has any direct or indirect impact on the ability of humans to procreate, Yes/No?

OMG, why me? Loving juicy steak instead of broccoli,
loving sweets and sweet drinks instead of water, loving chilling in front of tv instead of going to the gym, are all examples of beneficial and non-beneficial lifestyles.
BEFORE YOU REPLY and continue talking nonsense:
first google "why haven't humans evolved to love exercise and love food good for them", see if you'll see any mention of reproduction

Image123:
You must have met reedmarole.

LordReed:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You have come again to display your stupidity. What is nature if not a conglomeration of all NATURAL processes and their outcomes? Is NATURAL Selection not a part of nature then? Look at this dummy trying to use semantics to gaslight their way out of admitting they goofed. LMFAO!

Na wa o my bros.

Reed, is the word "selection" in the word "nature"??
The two screenshots below may help you

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! Who are you trying to gaslight? Where did I say individuals don't select? I said nature doesn't select here you are saying my focus is that no individual actually goes about selecting traits!! You excel in stupidity I swear. LMFAO!

Meanwhile when I first said nature doesn't select you were shitting bricks but now that I bitchslapped your brain you are changing mouth that selection isn't literal. Bwahahahahaha!

Dude I will be here to deliver some more bitchslaps to your brain don't worry.

I give up. I've tried. I don't know what sort of person this is. Folks please help me explain to my good buddy Reed that "natural selection" is NOT synonymous with "nature". Please help me explain to him that nature is a tangible thing while natural selection is a process that leads to certain traits being SELECTED! Please help me explain to him that his statement "natural selection doesn't select anything" is embarrassing even for an  elementary school biology student!

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

LordReed:
LMFAO! I swear you are fully stupid. You left where it CLEARLY states NO. TWICE. Only to focus on where again it uses select metaphorically and you want to talk to me about being stuck on literal words.

Reed you sure u ok? How can a thinking human being possibly be like this?? How can it be that of all things to discuss about natural selection your focus is that no individual actually goes about selecting traits!! Something that everyone instinctively knows! That's why I say you are a literalist. Read what Darwin said. That's why he used "it's as if"!
You sure u r all there Reed? I no get the way you reason o

LordReed:
I clearly did NOT write age because I was referring to organisms broadly some of whose reproductive cycles are in hours.

See exactly what I was saying? So age to you can't be in hours?? SMH

LordReed:
Show me where I wrote reproductive AGE.

What does the encircled embarrassing statement (below) mean to you?
Reed, honesty I don't think you are made for this type of discussion. It's as if you find it very difficult to get beyond the literal words to what is actually meant.

(Example: "long enough" in my statement below also implies "healthy enough and competitive enough" to reproduce)

LordReed:
LoLz. Don't deflect. Natural Selection DOES NOT SELECT. See it in black and white and reset your bitchslapped brain.

Aemmyjah, please help me tell my good buddy Reed to stop continuation embarrassment of himself. Please let him know that "select" and "selected for" are long established language of natural selection that even elementary school biology students instinctively know what it means. It simply means over time traits that are beneficial to success of a specie predominate.
Even his own screenshot (see below) uses "select"!!

LordReed:
Lemme bitchslap your brain some more. Read the screenshot.

PoliteActivist this bitchslap is for you too. Aemmyjah

My good buddy Reed, it is really a major wonder that you still have mouth to talk despite embarrassing yourself for so many pages on this thread. (See a sample below). Please, what exactly is the point of that your screenshot,?

LordReed:
Quote were I wrote reproductive age.

Must be your wife that wrote this below

Actually very encouraging verses for real

FRANCISTOWN:
I wish I could see you right now and land you a knock on that your small head like a year old baby's fist.

Does not loving broccoli, watching TV, not drinking lots of water and eating tasty foods cause people to not be able to reproduce when they reach the reproductive stage?

You'd be on your back before you can say "habit" - I'm a black belt in Karate😎

That's exactly my point! (have you lost your mind!) - I've been saying just because an organism reaches reproductive age doesn't mean it automatically reproduces. While you and LordReed have been all about reproductive age!
You sure u ok?

FRANCISTOWN:
Whatever Einstein, Newton or Socrates said about God was only good for their pocket.

Since God is supposed to be the God of the whole world. No one is more qualified than the other to talk about him.

This point above remains valid to people who have not gotten their brain twisted by religious and appeal to authority's foolishness.

Yeah! Some fools follow anything and anyone. I've been trying to avoid them. Let's both avoid them together.

Like I've said b4, since we here on earth basically don't know anything, we are NOT qualified to have opinion on God based on logic. We can only comment on God based on instinct or personal experience.
And like I've said, we all experience reality differently - just because you feel God doesn't exist for you doesn't mean he does not exist for another person!

FRANCISTOWN:
Haha! What's doing this one?
Where have I denied that they aren't habits?
Do you even read to understand at all?


People with unhealthy genes still get to reproductive stage i.e people with serious blood diseases and disorders still get to procreate and pass on those unhealthy genes to their offsprings, generation upon generation.
Therefore, you just spoke another nonsense.

Wait first, what exactly do you understand?

@The emboldened, you just showed this honourable forum that you are better off working at a cassava processing factory.
Academics isn't for you. Please consider fishing.

Seriously! I'd get a better intellectual advantage if I was having this debate with a 6 years old kid.

See below where you implicitly denied it - do you see any mention that they are habits??

You are playing ignorant again.
You've already been told that reaching reproductive age does not guarantee reproduction (see diabetes example below) and eventually the bad trait should disappear
But even if you banned disseaed people from reproducing, diseases would be transmitted by carriers who have the genes without ever experiencing the disease, also by mutations.

budaatum:
Descartes might have thought therefore he was, but I buda am, therefore I think, since I couldn't possibly be thinking if I wasn't in existence.

But don't be surprised, just answer the questions if you would. I'll ignore you otherwise.

Answer what questions?
Well, we don't know the nature of thinking just as we don't know the true nature of reality. We know people
who died and came back say they were thinking while dead. Also people possessed, dreaming, etc.
But even beyond that we can't even claim to be sure it is actually what we call "thinking" going on!

budaatum:
Why do you have no way of knowing the true nature of what you experience?

Are you incapable of interpreting the data you collect from your own experiences?

Why can you not know whether your experience is reality or whether it physically exists (and you actually experienced it)?

Do your senses not work?

Wow, I'm surprised you're asking something so obvious. Did you watch the movie the matrix? The only thing we can be sure exists is thinking or something like it. Descartes summarized it with "I think, therefore I am". Though he was wrong in linking himself to the thinking

budaatum:
Are you an earthly folk?

Do you not know ANYTHING?

No I actually don't, because I have no way of knowing the true nature of what I experience as reality or whether it physically exists at all!

FRANCISTOWN:
I've said it several times. Nothing, I repeat nothing has fit into the existence of what should be called a God. This world we live in is a testament that there can't be a thing called God. If there were demons, I would have said the multiverse was created by demons.

Anyways, I'm qualified to have an opinion about God. I had a cup of tea with him yesterday.

Einstein, Newton, Socrates, etc all said they knew nothing. They were right. Not only don’t humans know anything, they're incapable of knowing anything.

You are simply NOT even close to being qualified to even have anything close to opinion as to whether anything fits into the existence of what should be called a God!

FRANCISTOWN:
Make I die if I allow make you help me save face. You made a huge blunder and I tried to point your attention towards it.

Look at this


You said according to Natural Selection

Case 1: Eating broccoli, loving going to the gym( this is different from going to the gym, as you can love something and not do it), loving bland foods. Should be seen in about 90% humans because they are good.

Case 2: Hating juicy, sumptuous steak, watching TV, loving sweet drinks and tasty drinks are not supposed to be seen in up to 10% humans.

And I explained by saying that: taking juice, sumptuous steak, watching TV isn't bad in the grand events of Natural Selection because it doesn't stop humans from reaching the reproductive stage(RS).

Likewise everything in CASE 1 does not guarantee that any human will reach the reproductive stage.

If humans didn't eat broccoli they would still survive up till the RS, mind you there are other vegs.
If humans didn't drink lots of water they'd still survive up till RS. (Lots of water is different from required amount of water)
If humans don't go to the Gym they'd still survive up till RS.

And I said those things are not determinants in evolution by Natural Selection because they are not necessary for humans' survival based on adaptation and instinct in their environment.

I repeat, Natural Selection is about survival, not your habit.
Now if your habit was necessary for survival, then it becomes a trait. Now tell me how loving broccoli is necessary for survival up until the RS

Another blunder you made was viewing Natural Selection from the view of genetic inheritance.

Please point out where I made any error or plead your ignorance and take a bow.

First of all you are LYING. You said clearly and severally that those are habits NOT traits transmitted genetically. I don't know why you lying about something you said severally and clearly!

Secondly, you are arguing nonsense again. You obviously didn't read my post where I said reaching repro age doesn't mean you'd reproduce. You have to be HEALTHIER enough, STRONGER enough, and "richer" enough to actually get a mate (competition) and be healthy enough to actually physically mate, and have enough healthy seeds to actually reproduce.
Bottom line: over millions of years those with unhealthy traits SHOULD die off, leaving only those who love "eating broccoli and going to the gym"!

HellVictorinho6:
what!

u what!

wait!

what was i even thinking!

watz hapnin!

What what?? WHAT are you talking about?! Has it ever occurred to you I make my billions doing something