₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho:
Why are you tackling that guy?

Because he’s proudly portraying false knowledge of something he knows nothing about.

Pelecius:
I think I only asked you to show us how speciation would lead to increased complexity, yet you are referring to my post which clearly argued opposite of what I asked you to do.

Just provide the evidence, then I'll easily believe evolution and all this your back and forth will cease.

I'm not trying to sound informed (it's your fantasy, I believe). I am expressing what I know is consistent with the reality and even providing empirical evidence for them.
Till date, you have done nothing than wonder how I don't buy into your fallacy of equivocation. And mostly use adhominem when you don't have rebuttal.

You said we have evidence for speciation and later ask for empirical evidence for evolution when speciation is already the final process of an evolving specie. It’s a stupid question.

Evolving organisms will eventually go through speciation and then these new specie continue evolving.

Pelecius:

I just explained how you address objections, not knowing I'll be proved right again with this your latest response

I think I'll end this here. It's obvious you can't provide the evidence you believe in, hence you deflect here and there.
Time is precious

Seriously I had a lot of fun making fun of you and your supposed knowledge of evolution.

I wouldn’t have made fun of you if you didn’t show arrogant ignorance on the topic at first.

Pelecius:
Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

ok now I think I should help you so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself and you don’t go out saying this nonsense.

These are the major components of evolution:
1. Mutations
2. Changing environment conditions
3. Recombinations.
4. Adaptions.
5. Speciation.


Now to put them together in a statement; Mutations and recombinations within a population of organism, leads to variations in gene pool. The changing environmental conditions selects the gene that is adaptable at any point in time. Accumulated mutations and recombinations over time in a constantly changing environment leads to speciation. That’s simply evolution.


The moment any population living organism starts portraying any of this components, it has already started evolving.

I don’t know if you can comprehend this but I will try harder to explain.

Speciation is like a part of a car, evolution is the car. Speciation cannot work independent of the whole car.

You see why I have been making fun of you all these while? It’s impossible to believe in speciation without believing in evolution because speciation is the final process of all evolving specie that has adapted to changing environmental conditions over time.

It’s either you don’t understand speciation, evolution or both.

Pelecius:
Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

So speciation can happen outside the confines of evolution?

You are stupider than I thought

Pelecius:
Seems our "learned" one is really ignorant of logical fallacies.

Attack the message, and not the messenger.

Another fallacy is that of equivocation. The "learned" one can learn about them

You need to attack the messenger who sees evidence for speciation but doesn’t see for evolution. That messenger is very dumb.

He knows nothing and won’t ever learn anything

Pelecius:
If asked the evidence that evolution occurred, we may get evidence for adaptation or speciation which no informed one disputes, yet the "enlightened" ones want to tell us that it is evolution - the type that brought about all life forms from the first single ancestor.

But do we need to talk about the evolution when we can't even get how the first cell came to be? Worse, materialists have definitely reduce science to physics and chemistry, claiming that whatever can't be observed, tested and experimented is unscientific. But of course, same should go for evolution (it has never been observed and it'll never be, because no one can live for millions of years that's believed for it), abiogenesis (more researches are making the little hope fleet away, but that's the only atheistic myth for origin of life; so they have faith that it'll be cracked one day), panspermia (only pushing the problem of origin of life to outside of the earth. Again, no evidence of aliens, but the faith believe that given the vastness of the universe and the faith that abiogenesis occured even without evidence, then life must have arose in other places).

It's not lack of evidence for God' that makes people abandon Christianity, it's mostly the rebellious nature of man that kicks in. Then one use materialism to justify oneself in an intellectual manner.

That’s the statement that showcased your gross ignorance. How can you not dispute speciation and still be asking how evolution led to all species?

Think about it, you tried to sound informed but that was where you messed up. Take all the time in the world to think about it

Pelecius:


Prediction correct again

Did you think about that statement properly before typing it?

I believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Pelecius:


Prediction correct again

Who takes the predictions of someone who believes in speciation but not in evolution seriously!

Pelecius:


Let me make it interesting. Please show me where you answered it. You could make it easy for me "who doesn't understand science" by making a screenshot of where you said it and even just circle it. It'll help a lot

My prediction: you won't do it

Just to make it easy for anyone reading to see the brilliance of our "learned" one

i won’t even have to show a grade 6 student tha passé comprehension where I answered your question.

But you don’t get it, you are worst of all I have seen.

Pelecius:
Band wagon?

Just answer our questions O "learned" one. Provide the evidence, so you won't be running here and there and applying logical fallacies to stay afloat

it has been answered but you dont understand science.you don’t get it

Pelecius:

You are still repeating this. No amount of information you are exposed to will change what you've fixed in your mind? This is your equivocation is funny.


To avoid all this running here and there, just explain how speciation would bring about fish from the first single cell.
We want to learn from you, O "learned" one

Go to a science community and tell them to that you believe in speciation but not in evolution if you won’t be checked for mental issues.

HedwigesMaduro:
You confuse the spellings of Socrates and Plato? You're dyslexic or something?

It doesn’t matter why it is, if there’s no evidence for Jesus, even if we don’t have evidence that Buhari exit, it’s still not a justification for the existence of Jesus.

HedwigesMaduro:
What's the evidence? Plato's writings. You don't see a problem with that?

It becomes a fair equalivalence we you present Jesus’d writing. You now get why it’s a faulty equivalence?

Pelecius:
Enjoy your self delusion Bro

Self delusion is when you believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Comment of the year

Pelecius:

I really can't stop laughing

I have meant scientifically illiterates but yours is outstanding

HedwigesMaduro:
Your question was not whether Jesus was God or not; your question was whether truly He walked the planet Earth before. Be focused on your point and stop drifting.

There's evidence Plato existed, it's a dumb comparison.
Even if there's no evidence for Plato's existence, it's not an evidence that Jesus existed.
That's how ridiculous it is

HedwigesMaduro:
Do you believe Socrates (the Greek philosopher, not the late Brazilian footballer) ever walked the earth? If yes, can you give a verifiable evidence outside if Plato's writing that Socrates ever existed?

I don't believe it, there is evidence that he did. I accept the evidence

Pelecius:
You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?
Is your arrogance not alarming and its level astronomical?
I'll ask (though I know you CANNOT provide answer) to provide where I copied and paste this from.
Again, if you are really the "LEARNED" one as you've been implying since, you should see that what I wrote was not very precise (in the sense that saying "a MAN gave me money" is different from saying "FRED gave me money) as I was writing from memory.
I'm surprised you don't have any rebuttal to that and maybe was even impressed, such that you believed that I wouldn't be able to write that. And WRONGLY concluded that I copied it somewhere.

This just exposed you totally with your "he doesn't understand evolution" or "have you ever entered a lab" defense for your inability to provide evidence for what you believe and claim to be well informed on. It's pathetic.

Now I'll address your points again by His grace, though you hardly do that (at least, not without logical fallacies)

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors
This has not been my argument with you in the first place. And if I grant you this statement, what ancestors are you talking about?

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors.
So as not to reap your post out of context, I reproduce the statement in full.
Now, I'm not sure you read my response to Budaa or if you did, you clearly did not comprehend what I wrote.
I'll just post my response to him, if it'll help you understand my point.
Now, I think I gave examples on how a species formed becomes less genetically complex than it's ancestral parents; citing two classic examples. And concluded that such species have lost the ability to adapt to other variable habitats which could be different from that which it has been specialized to. On the other hand, the parent population could easily be genetically "controlled", coupled with selection pressure to become such new species, while a new species don't usually revert to it's more complex ancestral parent (as their is no mechanism for it to gain the lost genetic information that has been lost).
I'll advise you read it clearly and with my previous post as background.

We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case.
Of course, anything that would cause stumbling block must be avoided (junk DNA comes to mind). Again, saying it as if evolution is an absolute reality only beg the question of the discussion at hand.

Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.
Here he is with question begging epithet and elephant hurling.
Again, since I don't believe that humans are result speciation from monkeys, you are only attacking straw man. And if you claim of not referring to me (the surest defense mechanism), then it's still a non sequitur. Since it has no relevance to what we are discussing

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.

I have to laugh at the "learned" one here. For heaven's sake, my argument is that "no newly formed species (especially, those accompanied by loss of genetic information) is complex than their ancestral parent population".

So you are only attacking what? Your response does not just address what I am talking about.
And to address the logical error in the post. Darwin (and the new Neo-Darwinsm) provided mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism that will make a SIMPLER life form become complex. Though there has not been any empirical evidence for that (all the "evolution in action before our very eyes" hype has largely been evidence for design or loss of information). With this small background, Darwinists know that a mammal is a higher live form than E. coli for example. So how does the exposure of a mouse to deadly radiation from an asteroid impact on earth change the fact that it is a higher life form even according to Darwinists than the bacteria which can have population in a place where they won't be exposed to such deadly event?

And finally, it's not because they are adaptable to such deadly event (though, there are extremophiles which thrives in extreme climatic condition, but don't definitely thrive in other condition because they have been specialized to such extreme climate), but what ever survives could be organisms who thrives in extreme heat or those which does not have exposure to the event at all.
That they survive such cannot be solely attributed to them being adaptable to it. Else, you'll be commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent, O "learned" one

he still didn't get it even after explaining in dummy language

He’s stupid

Pelecius:
Smiles
Of course, the context of my discussion clearly showed that I was talking about biological species since I talked about speciation.

That I'm complex than my ancestor is simply begging the question at hand already. I've been asking for evidence of how speciation leads to complexity - the mechanism involved and if possible, empirical evidence that demonstrate this. But my "learned" one has not for once provide any.

Speciation is mostly a BRANCHING OFF from a lineage, so that changes due to selection pressure causes such population to be unable to breed with the parent population. And this change is definitely controlled mostly by genes. A classic example is the Darwin's finches. The different beak size and shapes are controlled mostly by the time, place and amount of expression of a certain gene during embryonic development. So a certain species which have completely adapt to a niche becomes "specialized" than a parent population which still has the variability to adapt to various habitats. Hence, the new species born have lost the ability to thrive in another environment (due to loss in genetic info).
Another classic examples is the flightless beatles which thrives in the windy desert. They lost the ability to produce wings from a winged parent population. And of course thrive since the winged ones in such habitat would be blown away by wind into the see. But then, for most which have completely lost the genetic mechanism required for producing wings would be unable to produce it again. Thus, we say that they are less complex than the winged ancestor.

That I am being complex genetically than my ancestor is really begging the question at hand.

you are not genetically complex than your ancestors, you are more genetically adaptable to this environmental condition than your ancestors. We don’t use the phrase “more complex” in evolution because that’s not the case. Only biologically illiterate think they are more complex genetically than monkeys.

If a big enough asteroid should hit earth today, every human will become extinct and most burrowing animals and deep ocean species will survive, it’s an indication that you are not genetically more complex than them and vice versa. They are just more adaptable to that hazardous environment than you.


You copied and pasted the explanation for speciation and still didn’t understand what was written in it. You are still talking about complexity. Where in the explanation did you see complexity?

hupernikao:
Workch, if i were you I will close the thread or modify the topic now to suit your extended pursuit. That will have a lot to say with the position of your heart to discussion.

DappaD has given you an answer that solved your question. Everything shouldn't be about arguing. Change your thread topic or close this as it has been fully and satisfactory answered.

This is how to be sincere and critical positively.

he didn’t provide verifiable evidence, did he?

Pelecius:
Great. It's obvious to anyone going through this now that you don't have answer to the simple question, as I have asked it about ten times and you never provide any evidence, but only avoid or deflect.

I'll be willing to answer your question, not until you provide yours first. (Your NECO candidate could help )

Damn, this is a very cheap way to chicken out.
You still haven’t seen that your question is ridiculous and someone who knows speciation wouldn’t ask that.

Jacksparrow7:
Hello, I am Uchenna by name.
God is real. This thing called evolution is in the book of Genesis chapter one. What do we as humans gain, if we die not knowing the truth?
God is called Ancient of Days. If someone has lived for 10000 years, how to we call that Ancient of Days? This means God has been creating other things before our own creation.
There is a sermon message that Apostle Joshua Selman, preached that has your evolution answer accurate.
But I was in a similar situation like yours. Almost ran mad. I was questioning the unquestionable, It was like trying to grind pure fine gold to see inside, which is impossible.

Please stop questioning facts and already proved formulas.
From your stories, I saw a lot of biblical errors. Please your Daddy did his best. Even my own Daddy is doing his best, but I have to now run this heavenly race and clean up the biblical errors in my life and learn the way.
I know we might not see the life of God well in our pastors, but let us also know that they are still running the race.
I would rather become a fool for God, than to doubt him one day. There is only one God and only him is true. This is my cry everyday. Before I ran mad, He picked me up. I praise his name.

lol

Pelecius:
One does not "necessarily" need to ask that as there are several ways to point out to the person that he is wrong. One is to provide evidence that prove the opposite of what the person is saying. Figures don't lie, they say.
Even Einstein was provided with evidence that was opposite of his steady state model of the universe, which then convinced him.
Simply asking "have you used a telescope?" Won't do anything.

By the way, I am still awaiting the answer from the "informed" one. Since it looks like you've been avoiding the question.
You could "open" someone's eyes with your answer, who knows?

lol, let me engage you a bit.

How is speciation accompanied with loss of information that will lead to reduced complexity? Discuss the genetics and molecular biology aspect of that.

Pelecius:
What has that question got to do with what I wrote, O "intelligent" one?
Do you need to use a telescope before you talk about what have been written about astronomy?

Lol

you don’t, but when what you talk about is not consistent with astronomy, one need to ask that.

Harshirama:
Lol, Moses wrote the Genesis story. He was communicating spiritual truths through natural illustrations. Can we talk privately?

So what’s the science in conceiving without fertilization?

What’s the science of walking on water?

Harshirama:
@op, the bible is not against science. As a Christian, I don't get my science from the bible. The focus of the bible is God's dealings with man. i.e it is spiritual. Science is just a single phase of existence.

Secondly, I just to have hard questions about the bible until I later got explanations. What I thought were contradictions weren't.

i use also think that the Bible is not against science until I realized that the Bible said plants were created before the sun.

The Bible said someone was born without fertilization, what’s the science there?

Pelecius:
Very funny indeed
It baffles me that "intelligent folks" are ignorant of the fact that empirical evidence of speciation is mostly accompanied by loss of information from a more general ancestor, and that no newly formed specie is more complex than it's ancestor.

And I have been asking our "learned" one to provide evidence for the contrary - from simpler to complex, through such mechanism. What followed was adhominem.

It's just a question bro. You are the informed one, simply provide answer

Really?
Have ever entered a lab?

No be only loss of information

Pelecius:
Very funny indeed
It baffles me that "intelligent folks" are ignorant of the fact that empirical evidence of speciation is mostly accompanied by loss of information from a more general ancestor, and that no newly formed specie is more complex than it's ancestor.

And I have been asking our "learned" one to provide evidence for the contrary - from simpler to complex, through such mechanism. What followed was adhominem.

It's just a question bro. You are the informed one, simply provide answer

but the answer is in the speciation and adaptation you said you believe in.

I believe in speciation and adaptation but not in evolution is like saying “thank god I don’t believe in god”. Just so funny

LordReed:
It's when we dicuss that such miseducation gets revealed and we can tackle it but it is funny though.

Yes, I swear

How can someone even think of believing in speciation and adaptation but not in evolution? Even after I tried explaining to him how that doesn’t make sense, pelecius stull didn’t get it and not even willing to understand the gaffe.

Pelecius:
Lol

Lol

If you are asking such question even after saying you understand speciation then you are irredeemably ignorant. We seriously need to question your knowledge of adaptation and speciation.

From the moment you replied that there’s evidence for speciation and adaptation but none for evolution, I just gave up . The ignorance can’t get worse