Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: Logic
(17-11-2015 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 12:10 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I just looked at some new papers and websites today on the issues.

Oh, do tell. Which ones?

Quote:Yes, WE are organisms that you claim are resultant of many years of evolution but the first multicellular, multi-system organisms were created by processes that defy the "abilities" of mechanistic evolution.

What is your evidence beyond personal incredulity?

Quote:You know as well as I that my statement can be applied to the first complex life as well as to us.

Then you should have said so instead of using a ridiculous and erroneous example.

Quote:Scientists have, they believe, fostered an understanding of how the first life reproduced, but are yet to account for the multiple cross-reliant systems that would have had to appear simultaneously. Do you deny this?

Yes, I deny this. There are many accounts of how complex systems can come about.
If you had ever read a book by an actual evolutionary biologist you would know this.

We can trace the emergence lungs, for instance, from swim bladder to proto-lung to lung.

Eyes are dead simple - we observe eyes of degrees of complexity from light sensitive cells to the eye of the hawk.

Really? I have to repeat again the impossibility of simultaneously evolving any number of interdependent complex systems? Not one system, systemS with a plural S.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: Logic
(20-11-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2015 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, do tell. Which ones?


What is your evidence beyond personal incredulity?


Then you should have said so instead of using a ridiculous and erroneous example.


Yes, I deny this. There are many accounts of how complex systems can come about.
If you had ever read a book by an actual evolutionary biologist you would know this.

We can trace the emergence lungs, for instance, from swim bladder to proto-lung to lung.

Eyes are dead simple - we observe eyes of degrees of complexity from light sensitive cells to the eye of the hawk.

Really? I have to repeat again the impossibility of simultaneously evolving any number of interdependent complex systems? Not one system, systemS with a plural S.

Once again, you betray your shallow, cartoonish understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular.

Really, you need to actually read an actual science book written by an actual evolutionary biologist.

Your beliefs and ignorant incredulity do not constitute an argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Logic
(20-11-2015 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Really? I have to repeat again the impossibility of simultaneously evolving any number of interdependent complex systems? Not one system, systemS with a plural S.

Once again, you betray your shallow, cartoonish understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular.

Really, you need to actually read an actual science book written by an actual evolutionary biologist.

Your beliefs and ignorant incredulity do not constitute an argument.

And you refutation contains only opinion and no facts. No one at TTA has ever even attempted to answer my inquiries along these lines--and no wonder because the peer-reviewed literature is thin at best and smoke and mirrors at worst. Gradual changes over time, even rapid changes over time, cannot allow organisms to live and propagate if they are not in sync regarding internal systems. Period.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 02:13 PM
RE: Logic
(23-11-2015 10:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again, you betray your shallow, cartoonish understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular.

Really, you need to actually read an actual science book written by an actual evolutionary biologist.

Your beliefs and ignorant incredulity do not constitute an argument.

And you refutation contains only opinion and no facts. No one at TTA has ever even attempted to answer my inquiries along these lines--and no wonder because the peer-reviewed literature is thin at best and smoke and mirrors at worst. Gradual changes over time, even rapid changes over time, cannot allow organisms to live and propagate if they are not in sync regarding internal systems. Period.

Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
23-11-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: Logic
(23-11-2015 10:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-11-2015 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once again, you betray your shallow, cartoonish understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular.

Really, you need to actually read an actual science book written by an actual evolutionary biologist.

Your beliefs and ignorant incredulity do not constitute an argument.

And you refutation contains only opinion and no facts. No one at TTA has ever even attempted to answer my inquiries along these lines--and no wonder because the peer-reviewed literature is thin at best and smoke and mirrors at worst. Gradual changes over time, even rapid changes over time, cannot allow organisms to live and propagate if they are not in sync regarding internal systems. Period.

I am not going to try to teach you about biology on a forum - it is more than a book-length subject.

You objections are pure incredulous ignorance.
Read some science books or just shut the fuck up about biology. You have nothing of value to offer on that subject.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Logic
(23-11-2015 02:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 10:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And you refutation contains only opinion and no facts. No one at TTA has ever even attempted to answer my inquiries along these lines--and no wonder because the peer-reviewed literature is thin at best and smoke and mirrors at worst. Gradual changes over time, even rapid changes over time, cannot allow organisms to live and propagate if they are not in sync regarding internal systems. Period.

Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

Not even where I've been going with this--I'm continuing with the same line--changes slow or fast would have to happen simultaneously to make complex life thrive. Here's an analogy. You've been told marine life eventually, gradually became land-based life. What systems are different between sea and land creatures?

Reproduction, temperature regulation (could change one degree in the sea but 50 degrees on land in the same 24-hour block of time), digestive, excretion, respiration--not to mention food sources, access (reaching to get) food sources, etc.

If these things do not occur simultaneously the life doesn't make it on land--or in the sea. You could have all these things happening incrementally, slowly, but each one decreases the survivability of the sea creature unless it moves to land rapidly.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Logic
(24-11-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 02:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

Not even where I've been going with this--I'm continuing with the same line--changes slow or fast would have to happen simultaneously to make complex life thrive. Here's an analogy. You've been told marine life eventually, gradually became land-based life. What systems are different between sea and land creatures?

Reproduction, temperature regulation (could change one degree in the sea but 50 degrees on land in the same 24-hour block of time), digestive, excretion, respiration--not to mention food sources, access (reaching to get) food sources, etc.

If these things do not occur simultaneously the life doesn't make it on land--or in the sea. You could have all these things happening incrementally, slowly, but each one decreases the survivability of the sea creature unless it moves to land rapidly.

Are you aware that there is a whole spectrum of lifeforms that extends from creatures that can only live in the sea to creatures that can only live on land, with creatures that can do either (we call them amphibians) in the middle? There is no sharp dividing line like you're pretending there is. It's a continuum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
24-11-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: Logic
(24-11-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 02:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

Not even where I've been going with this--I'm continuing with the same line--changes slow or fast would have to happen simultaneously to make complex life thrive. Here's an analogy. You've been told marine life eventually, gradually became land-based life. What systems are different between sea and land creatures?

Reproduction, temperature regulation (could change one degree in the sea but 50 degrees on land in the same 24-hour block of time), digestive, excretion, respiration--not to mention food sources, access (reaching to get) food sources, etc.

If these things do not occur simultaneously the life doesn't make it on land--or in the sea. You could have all these things happening incrementally, slowly, but each one decreases the survivability of the sea creature unless it moves to land rapidly.

Citation please.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: Logic
(24-11-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 02:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

Not even where I've been going with this--I'm continuing with the same line--changes slow or fast would have to happen simultaneously to make complex life thrive. Here's an analogy. You've been told marine life eventually, gradually became land-based life. What systems are different between sea and land creatures?

Reproduction, temperature regulation (could change one degree in the sea but 50 degrees on land in the same 24-hour block of time), digestive, excretion, respiration--not to mention food sources, access (reaching to get) food sources, etc.

If these things do not occur simultaneously the life doesn't make it on land--or in the sea. You could have all these things happening incrementally, slowly, but each one decreases the survivability of the sea creature unless it moves to land rapidly.

Just stop, you buffoon. Facepalm

Your ignorance and cartoonish view of evolution are laughable. Read a fucking science book, you willfully ignorant shithead.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 09:13 PM
RE: Logic
(24-11-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 02:13 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Just so we're clear, you're rejecting the fact that small changes happen over time?
And you are taking that anti-mutation stance because you think things can't happen incrementally?

Not even where I've been going with this--I'm continuing with the same line--changes slow or fast would have to happen simultaneously to make complex life thrive. Here's an analogy. You've been told marine life eventually, gradually became land-based life.

I will concede that I have been told that marine life did over a long period of time begin to develop terrestrial features which allowed them to better survive.
But I will add that I've been informed of this by my professors; people who have worked for decades to understand evolution; what it is, how it is and why it happens.
As a first-year, I welcome you to come visit Flinders University's School of Biological Sciences and enlighten the staff and student body with the correct information. I suggest you have graphs. From my own experience, I can tell you they love those things. Want them in everything.

(24-11-2015 11:11 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What systems are different between sea and land creatures?

Reproduction, temperature regulation (could change one degree in the sea but 50 degrees on land in the same 24-hour block of time), digestive, excretion, respiration--not to mention food sources, access (reaching to get) food sources, etc.

If these things do not occur simultaneously the life doesn't make it on land--or in the sea. You could have all these things happening incrementally, slowly, but each one decreases the survivability of the sea creature unless it moves to land rapidly.

Incremental changes from 'standard' fish-like structure to that of Tiktaalik (for instance) were not deleterious to the inheritors as they must have survived to propagate the trait. Or limbs are magical.
In fact, creatures that were progressively tiktaalike (see what I did there) probably received a considerable fitness (fitness being a biological term for the ability for an individual to survive and reproduce effectively) advantage as the pectoral girdle was slowly freed from the skull (slowly giving the creature a neck and all its advantages) and the pectoral fins developed into appendages capable of a considerable range of motion, allowing progressively more efficient hunting capability, in addition to the advantage of cover from predators as the modified fins allowed the fish to move in progressively shallower waters in later stages.

Your portrayal makes it seem as though you think scientists think things went on land at some point and suddenly went 'oh shit, we can't do the living' and changed accordingly.
To the view of my educators (and the scientific community at large), this is a warped idea of how things happened; mutations developed which furthered the ability of the inheritors to live better closer to the shore and from there, outside of water for short times: the earliest 'real' land-colonisers were basal amphibians, which depended on water for survival, but were able to move water bodies if there was a needed.
Not everything had to change at once to facilitate the evolution from fish to basal amphibians; changes were primarily skeletal (slow development of limbs) and respiration (the ability to better extract and retain oxygen eventually leading to pseudo-lungs). Diet didn't need to change, nor did reproduction or temperature regulation or other such things.

Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that such changes took place of millions of years; thus over countless generations, and across populations. It wasn't just one fish that started to develop lobe-fins and eventually wrist-like structures allowing them to walk on the sea bed and eventually land; the mutations that caused the subtle advantageous changes propagated more of things similar to themselves (let's hear it for imperfect replication) which would make more until additional mutations arose which proved advantageous and those spread and mixed and so-on until you have essentially primitive mudskippers with more water-time.
Animals only abandoned the water millions of years after the development of land-capable travel and open-air breathing when some developed harder skin better able to retain water, better limb placement and structure and egg-sacs (protip; we call the result of those adaptations reptiles.)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: