(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 08:00 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  The laryngeal nerve example, is an example of "path of least resistance" in the same way that whales adapting a preexistent (<---no, I'm not going to bother to put that in quotes) lung, rather than develop an entire new respiratory organ is an example of a "path of least resistance".

The phrase "path of least resistance" is again meaningless in evolutionary terms. What is offering this "resistance" and against what is the comparator for the term least.

Whales haven't developed gills because they don't need to. It is as simple as that. There has been no environmental pressure to produce gills. It has nothing to do with some "path of least resistance". Natural selection will produce adequate solutions and not necessarily ideal or optimal solutions because the variation is random.

That is also why the paths of the recurrent laryngeal nerves are circuitous.

Quote:If you can understand why that's true, and simply "apply" it over, then you'll really save me a lot of time typing later, and making sure all of the fucking quotations marks are in their fucking "proper" "places".

It's not "true", it is bullshit. You are muddying the process of evolution by introducing inappropriate figurative language that misleads rather than clarifies. Natural selection is simple to explain:

(i) random heritable variation;
(ii) deterministic environmental selection.

And it should be distinguished from genetic drift which also contributes to evolution but is an entirely random process.

All this shit-talk about entropy and paths of least resistance and unqualified teleological language is just confused and confusing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:04 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 08:00 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  If you can understand why that's true, and simply "apply" it over, then you'll really save me a lot of time typing later, and making sure all of the fucking quotations marks are in their fucking "proper" "places".

Please don't do any more typing on this subject. Go away and read the introductory chapters of a textbook on evolutionary biology. You aren't doing anything to promote a wider understanding of evolutionary biology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:06 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 08:00 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  The laryngeal nerve example, is an example of "path of least resistance" in the same way that whales adapting a preexistent (<---no, I'm not going to bother to put that in quotes) lung, rather than develop an entire new respiratory organ is an example of a "path of least resistance".

The phrase "path of least resistance" is again meaningless in evolutionary terms. What is offering this "resistance" and against what is the comparator for the term least.

Whales haven't developed gills because they don't need to. It is as simple as that. There has been no environmental pressure to produce gills. It has nothing to do with some "path of least resistance". Natural selection will produce adequate solutions and not necessarily ideal or optimal solutions because the variation is random.

That is also why the paths of the recurrent laryngeal nerves are circuitous.

Quote:If you can understand why that's true, and simply "apply" it over, then you'll really save me a lot of time typing later, and making sure all of the fucking quotations marks are in their fucking "proper" "places".

It's not "true", it is bullshit. You are muddying the process of evolution by introducing inappropriate figurative language that misleads rather than clarifies. Natural selection is simple to explain:

(i) random heritable variation;
(ii) deterministic environmental selection.

And it should be distinguished from genetic drift which also contributes to evolution but is an entirely random process.

All this shit-talk about entropy and paths of least resistance and unqualified teleological language is just confused and confusing.

Number one: I did not "introduce" anything.

Number two: "Most" (or for clarity sake as you like, I should say enough, not all) of what you are saying is making my very point. Do you understand what the original post is about? What it's purpose is?

(21-02-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Whales haven't developed gills because they don't need to.
Yeah...that's right...that's the fucking point! Why are you telling me? Ask yourself, "who is the original post intended for"?

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 09:04 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 08:00 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  If you can understand why that's true, and simply "apply" it over, then you'll really save me a lot of time typing later, and making sure all of the fucking quotations marks are in their fucking "proper" "places".

Please don't do any more typing on this subject. Go away and read the introductory chapters of a textbook on evolutionary biology. You aren't doing anything to promote a wider understanding of evolutionary biology.

Not an argument from authority, just a reply, but at least half of my major was based in evolution.

All you're trying to do is muddy waters. Every thread I ever see you in, no matter how serious or frivolous, or anywhere in between on that spectrum, all you are there to do, is muddy the waters. Even when you seem to agree with the post, and the other posters agree with you, you have a pathological need to muddy everything so that the topic and any tread follower becomes lost.

I sometimes almost like what you're posting, but then you just ruin your own post. I've given you a chance, I don't have room for you.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 09:06 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Do you understand what the original post is about? What it's purpose is?

The purpose appears to be to demonstrate that creationists don't understand evolution but it demonstrated that at least two atheists also don't understand evolution.

You shouldn't be trying to teach anyone evolutionary biology because you have no real understanding of the topic or if you do it isn't reaching the external world. It is only because you seek out people that are more ignorant than you are about evolution that you seem to think you are an authority on the subject.

Teach yourself then you can teach others. Stop posting technically inaccurate and philosophically naive bullshit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 09:16 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 09:04 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Please don't do any more typing on this subject. Go away and read the introductory chapters of a textbook on evolutionary biology. You aren't doing anything to promote a wider understanding of evolutionary biology.

Not an argument from authority, just a reply, but at least half of my major was based in evolution.

All you're trying to do is muddy waters. Every thread I ever see you in, no matter how serious or frivolous, or anywhere in between on that spectrum, all you are there to do, is muddy the waters. Even when you seem to agree with the post, and the other posters agree with you, you have a pathological need to muddy everything so that the topic and any tread follower becomes lost.

I sometimes almost like what you're posting, but then you just ruin your own post. I've given you a chance, I don't have room for you.

It is you that is muddying the waters. You either don't understand evolution or are entirely incapable of communicating it to anyone. Introducing ideas that are alien to the theory such as "path of least resistance" is demonstrative of this.

Also, I don't care whether you like my posts. I clearly know more about evolution than you do and I am better able to explain it so the idea of you rating my posts is ridiculous. So long as you continue to post misleading bullshit I will point that out. I don't care what you have "room for".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 09:16 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Every thread I ever see you in, no matter how serious or frivolous, or anywhere in between on that spectrum, all you are there to do, is muddy the waters. Even when you seem to agree with the post, and the other posters agree with you, you have a pathological need to muddy everything so that the topic and any tread follower becomes lost.

Pursuing technical accuracy and cogency is not "muddying the waters". Simplification to the point of inaccuracy and nonsensicality helps no one.

If the premise of the thread is that creationists don't understand evolution then you should make sure that you understand evolution before posting. This shouldn't even need to be stated.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
How evolution really happens...

[Image: wtf-awkward-moments-not-found-in-your-av...ble-23.jpg]

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2014, 06:12 PM
(Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(21-02-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 08:00 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  The laryngeal nerve example, is an example of "path of least resistance" in the same way that whales adapting a preexistent (<---no, I'm not going to bother to put that in quotes) lung, rather than develop an entire new respiratory organ is an example of a "path of least resistance".

The phrase "path of least resistance" is again meaningless in evolutionary terms. What is offering this "resistance" and against what is the comparator for the term least.

Whales haven't developed gills because they don't need to. It is as simple as that. There has been no environmental pressure to produce gills. It has nothing to do with some "path of least resistance". Natural selection will produce adequate solutions and not necessarily ideal or optimal solutions because the variation is random.

Now you're just indulging in pedantry over layperson terminology.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
22-02-2014, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2014 11:16 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: (Q for Theist) Why didn't "God" give Cetaceans gills?
(22-02-2014 06:12 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 08:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The phrase "path of least resistance" is again meaningless in evolutionary terms. What is offering this "resistance" and against what is the comparator for the term least.

Whales haven't developed gills because they don't need to. It is as simple as that. There has been no environmental pressure to produce gills. It has nothing to do with some "path of least resistance". Natural selection will produce adequate solutions and not necessarily ideal or optimal solutions because the variation is random.

Now you're just indulging in pedantry over layperson terminology.

And you'll note, not only did I not "introduce" the term, as he later claimed, but I even (by chance, not because of him) used quotes, as he so pedantically requires because he becomes extremely easily confused by common language and syntax (he might be autistic), yet rejected his own reasoning when those very quotes were used. Because, the conversation is not what any of this is about for him.

The following explains a lot...







...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: