An evolutionary parable.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#21 Jun 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
WHERE is evolution theory in this tattle?
NEXT TIME YOU ADDRESS EVOLUTION, DON'T YOU?
The reason you're so prone to anger is because anger often scares organisms off, making it unlikely you will face opposition and experience hardship. This makes females more attracted to you.

If you only get this angry on the internet it is because getting angry in reality may incur conflict, reducing your survival value.

This topic isn't primarily about evolution. Try to keep up. It's about explanations given in light of evolution. Don't tell me this isn't done either. I read a book just a couple of days ago whose author did just that.
LGK

Llansantffraid, UK

#22 Jun 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, evolution only explains biodiversity.
The only thing what matters are the treats that enhance survival and reproduction chances.
All other things, like quaking and not-quaking, will not evolve.
Senseless tattle addressing nothing. In any case NOT evolution.
HENCE, next time address evolution, OK?
Next tattle.
Kindly explain, not tell a tale, how threats or treats enhance survival & reproduction chances. I can feel another just-so coming up but may be you'll surprise me.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#23 Jun 14, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether something is fictional or not has no bearing whatsoever.
Those lines from little red ridinghood simply reminded me of evolutionary reasoning. Even if evolution is real as it is currently thought of, glib and stupid explanations are still glib and stupid. Not to mention insanely speculative and borderline thoughtless.
Just because you don't understand stuff doesn't make it stupid.

Feel free to refute the evidence we've already provided. Until then your arguments are worthless.

So I guess that's how they're gonna stay, huh?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#24 Jun 14, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly explain, not tell a tale, how threats or treats enhance survival & reproduction chances. I can feel another just-so coming up but may be you'll surprise me.
I can feel another dodge of providing us all with this "code" you kept babbling about that you claim exists but were never able to show it.

Tell us what it is, El.

Tell us how invisible Jew wizards pass the scientific method El.

Because we CAN show how evolution passes the scientific method, El.

That's why you fundies are at a DISTINCT disadvantage.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#25 Jun 15, 2014
So I guess the fact that no one is contesting my point means that you are in tacit agreement with it?

If so, how are such explanations different from astrology?

Yes. Evolutionary psychology=astrology. I feel like I've just made an amazing discovery. I should get a freaking nobel for this.

By the way, the reason we are attracted to astrological explanations is twofold. Our ancestors did not have the convenience of navigational tools and had to rely on the stars to move about. A propensity to attribute special importance to the constellations made us predisposed to learn them better.

The second reason is because believing in absurd things that supposed authorities tell us allowed us to move unseen in society, where the rulers were at once ruthless and stupid. One must not challenge stupidity when the threat is there of death.

Speaking of absurd things, the reason we believe evolutionary psychology is... And so the cycle closes.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#26 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
No, some of it is related to evolution, like the absurd explanations given for eyes and brains.
Some, and what this topic is mostly about, is related to ridiculous evolutionary explanations of some of the mental traits we posses. You don't need to prove that those don't make sense. They're self evidently laughable.
Also, clearly, evolution does not make sense to me because if it did, I would become despondent
and despondent people tend to care about things less, thus making me less likely to survive.
WHERE is evolution theory in this tattle?
NEXT TIME YOU ADDRESS EVOLUTION, DON'T YOU?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#27 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you're so prone to anger is because anger often scares organisms off, making it unlikely you will face opposition and experience hardship. This makes females more attracted to you.
If you only get this angry on the internet it is because getting angry in reality may incur conflict, reducing your survival value.
This topic isn't primarily about evolution. Try to keep up. It's about explanations given in light of evolution. Don't tell me this isn't done either. I read a book just a couple of days ago whose author did just that.
WHERE is evolution theory in this tattle?
NEXT TIME YOU ADDRESS EVOLUTION, DON'T YOU?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#29 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
So I guess the fact that no one is contesting my point means that you are in tacit agreement with it?
If so, how are such explanations different from astrology?
Yes. Evolutionary psychology=astrology. I feel like I've just made an amazing discovery. I should get a freaking nobel for this.
By the way, the reason we are attracted to astrological explanations is twofold. Our ancestors did not have the convenience of navigational tools and had to rely on the stars to move about. A propensity to attribute special importance to the constellations made us predisposed to learn them better.
The second reason is because believing in absurd things that supposed authorities tell us allowed us to move unseen in society, where the rulers were at once ruthless and stupid. One must not challenge stupidity when the threat is there of death.
Speaking of absurd things, the reason we believe evolutionary psychology is... And so the cycle closes.
WHERE is evolution theory in this tattle?
NEXT TIME YOU ADDRESS EVOLUTION, DON'T YOU?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#30 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you're so prone to anger is because anger often scares organisms off, making it unlikely you will face opposition and experience hardship. This makes females more attracted to you.
If you only get this angry on the internet it is because getting angry in reality may incur conflict, reducing your survival value.
This topic isn't primarily about evolution. Try to keep up. It's about explanations given in light of evolution. Don't tell me this isn't done either. I read a book just a couple of days ago whose author did just that.
I quote you: "These are the sort of explanations evolution proponents provide for the existence of...pretty much anything.", which was pertaining to your first post of this thread.

AGAIN: WHERE IS EVOLUTION IN YOUR FIRST POST?
NEXT TIME ADDRESS EVOLUTION, OK?
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#31 Jun 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I quote you: "These are the sort of explanations evolution proponents provide for the existence of...pretty much anything.", which was pertaining to your first post of this thread.
AGAIN: WHERE IS EVOLUTION IN YOUR FIRST POST?
NEXT TIME ADDRESS EVOLUTION, OK?
I think you might want to take some deep breaths. I'll wait.
Okay. Now, yes, these are the sort of explanations they expound. This relates both to body mechanics and mental traits. Take the eye for instance. The explanation most common for its development. The eye began as light sensitive cells, evolved into whatever and grew in complexity with each step. And then, we came by one of its final products. If that is not speculative at best, I don't know what is. Do we even know what changes are required for the eye to change in that manner? Do we know what steps would confer an actual advantage and what steps would not? No. All we have are hypotheses that don't have a firm foundation in knowledge.
Aside from that, this thread has more to do with explanations pertaining to our nature than to our physiology. I'd have thought I'd made it abundantly clear already.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#32 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you might want to take some deep breaths. I'll wait.
Okay. Now, yes, these are the sort of explanations they expound. This relates both to body mechanics and mental traits. Take the eye for instance. The explanation most common for its development. The eye began as light sensitive cells, evolved into whatever and grew in complexity with each step. And then, we came by one of its final products. If that is not speculative at best, I don't know what is. Do we even know what changes are required for the eye to change in that manner? Do we know what steps would confer an actual advantage and what steps would not? No. All we have are hypotheses that don't have a firm foundation in knowledge.
Aside from that, this thread has more to do with explanations pertaining to our nature than to our physiology. I'd have thought I'd made it abundantly clear already.
The only thing that you seem to have made clear is that you don't know anything and consider that to be a sound foundation upon which to make broad, unsupported claims. I believe everyone besides you has been abundantly clear about that.

Your points about the evolution of eyes illustrates well your lack of knowledge of science and evolution. For one thing, there is no "final product". If mutations occur and selection favors them, eyes might eventually change. Being able to distinguish objects would confer an advantage. Being able to see color would confer an advantage. Being able to detect movement would confer and advantage. Being able to determine the direction of the sun would confer an advantage. All dependent on the selection pressure of course. The development of the eye is not speculation. We know how they develop in different organisms embryonically. We know organisms that have eyes of varying complexity, developmental origin and varying flaws or lack of them. While eyes may not fossilize well or at all, we can that many fossils are of organisms that possessed some form of eye. Eye sockets in vertebrate fossils for instance. So, it is not as you describe. You should at least read creationist/ID/pseudoscience propaganda if you are going to play on this field.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#33 Jun 16, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The only thing that you seem to have made clear is that you don't know anything and consider that to be a sound foundation upon which to make broad, unsupported claims. I believe everyone besides you has been abundantly clear about that.
Your points about the evolution of eyes illustrates well your lack of knowledge of science and evolution. For one thing, there is no "final product". If mutations occur and selection favors them, eyes might eventually change. Being able to distinguish objects would confer an advantage. Being able to see color would confer an advantage. Being able to detect movement would confer and advantage. Being able to determine the direction of the sun would confer an advantage. All dependent on the selection pressure of course. The development of the eye is not speculation. We know how they develop in different organisms embryonically. We know organisms that have eyes of varying complexity, developmental origin and varying flaws or lack of them. While eyes may not fossilize well or at all, we can that many fossils are of organisms that possessed some form of eye. Eye sockets in vertebrate fossils for instance. So, it is not as you describe. You should at least read creationist/ID/pseudoscience propaganda if you are going to play on this field.
Relative to the past... Final product relative to the past you nitpicking annoyance. Jesus Christ can't I say anything without some smart alack trying to correct me on it? Does it not occur to you that maybe...just maybe...I actually am aware that evolution has no actual final products? Does it occur to you to read my words without trying to twist meanings into lack of knowledge?

What you've written shows how little you've actually thought about the subject. Do you actually know what sort of changes are required for each of these steps? What does it take to go from light sensitive cells to distinguishing objects? Why would the brain manage to interpret what it sees successfully? What changes does that require? How many steps? Which of them confers an advantage? You are thinking like a child, not a scientist.

I would be very careful if I were you if you are going to speak of flaws and how different organisms have less developed eyes. Humans often make proclamations of judgement without understanding a thing. It is possible that those eyes would later evolve, though it remains to be shown that they can evolve by random mutations. It is also possible that these organisms simply require a certain kind of eye to get by, and aren't even supposed to have eyes like other creatures'.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#34 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
So I guess the fact that no one is contesting my point means that you are in tacit agreement with it?
If so, how are such explanations different from astrology?
Yes. Evolutionary psychology=astrology. I feel like I've just made an amazing discovery. I should get a freaking nobel for this.
By the way, the reason we are attracted to astrological explanations is twofold. Our ancestors did not have the convenience of navigational tools and had to rely on the stars to move about. A propensity to attribute special importance to the constellations made us predisposed to learn them better.
The second reason is because believing in absurd things that supposed authorities tell us allowed us to move unseen in society, where the rulers were at once ruthless and stupid. One must not challenge stupidity when the threat is there of death.
Speaking of absurd things, the reason we believe evolutionary psychology is... And so the cycle closes.
Uh, stupid, you're drooling all over the threads again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Relative to the past... Final product relative to the past you nitpicking annoyance. Jesus Christ can't I say anything without some smart alack trying to correct me on it? Does it not occur to you that maybe...just maybe...I actually am aware that evolution has no actual final products? Does it occur to you to read my words without trying to twist meanings into lack of knowledge?
What you've written shows how little you've actually thought about the subject.
BONG!!!
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually know what sort of changes are required for each of these steps? What does it take to go from light sensitive cells to distinguishing objects? Why would the brain manage to interpret what it sees successfully? What changes does that require? How many steps? Which of them confers an advantage? You are thinking like a child, not a scientist.
I would be very careful if I were you if you are going to speak of flaws and how different organisms have less developed eyes. Humans often make proclamations of judgement without understanding a thing. It is possible that those eyes would later evolve, though it remains to be shown that they can evolve by random mutations. It is also possible that these organisms simply require a certain kind of eye to get by, and aren't even supposed to have eyes like other creatures'.
Hey stupid, have you been able to provide us with a menu for each and every meal you've ever had in your entire life? If not your entire existence is suspect.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#36 Jun 16, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly explain, not tell a tale, how threats or treats enhance survival & reproduction chances. I can feel another just-so coming up but may be you'll surprise me.
Ah you are relying on typos as your main argumentation.
Why are creationists doing their best all the time to demonstrate the deplorable state of creationism?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#37 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Relative to the past... Final product relative to the past you nitpicking annoyance. Jesus Christ can't I say anything without some smart alack trying to correct me on it? Does it not occur to you that maybe...just maybe...I actually am aware that evolution has no actual final products? Does it occur to you to read my words without trying to twist meanings into lack of knowledge?
What you've written shows how little you've actually thought about the subject. Do you actually know what sort of changes are required for each of these steps? What does it take to go from light sensitive cells to distinguishing objects? Why would the brain manage to interpret what it sees successfully? What changes does that require? How many steps? Which of them confers an advantage? You are thinking like a child, not a scientist.
I would be very careful if I were you if you are going to speak of flaws and how different organisms have less developed eyes. Humans often make proclamations of judgement without understanding a thing. It is possible that those eyes would later evolve, though it remains to be shown that they can evolve by random mutations. It is also possible that these organisms simply require a certain kind of eye to get by, and aren't even supposed to have eyes like other creatures'.
So we are back once again to your position. If we don't know every step of the way or exactly how something happened then it must be due to a designer. This will hold until we do know the step or steps. What will you do then? Your gaps increase in number, but decrease in size.

You post on an open forum. Why are you whining and crying when your flawed logic and irrational claims are called?

I agree with your previous claims that you don't understand evolution and have a very limited knowledge of the subject. Random mutation has been shown to be a source of variation on which evolution has occurred.

Not only is it possible that eyes might later evolve, it has happened independently with about 30 or so different taxa.

You have to show evidence of a designers and a designers intent before you can claim that one creature or another has a certain feature or not. You are dragging your horse.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#38 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you might want to take some deep breaths. I'll wait.
Okay. Now, yes, these are the sort of explanations they expound. This relates both to body mechanics and mental traits. Take the eye for instance. The explanation most common for its development. The eye began as light sensitive cells, evolved into whatever and grew in complexity with each step. And then, we came by one of its final products. If that is not speculative at best, I don't know what is. Do we even know what changes are required for the eye to change in that manner? Do we know what steps would confer an actual advantage and what steps would not? No. All we have are hypotheses that don't have a firm foundation in knowledge.
Aside from that, this thread has more to do with explanations pertaining to our nature than to our physiology. I'd have thought I'd made it abundantly clear already.
Ah your first substantial answer.
CONGRATULATIONS.

The evolution of the eye is very well understood:
1. light sensitive molecules on the membrane of certain single cellular organisms
2. pockets of light sensitive cells in a multicellular organism: a BIG evolutionary advantage because the organism now can distinguish dark and light and regulate its metabolism accordingly
3. depression or a fold in the light sensitive area allows for limited directional sensitivity. BIG advantage
4. a pinhole eye allows for better directional sensitivity and limited imagining. NEXT improvement
5. the pinhole closed by a transparent membrane decreases the eye hole to be polluted by debris or infected easily
6. the membrane thickened to a lens is a further enhancement
7. the lens able to distract produces better focus

Speculative?
ALL eye types 1-8 and even many stages in between are present in extant species living today.

You may explain why all eye types 1-8 and even all kinds of intermediaries exist in extant species is speculative.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#39 Jun 16, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So we are back once again to your position. If we don't know every step of the way or exactly how something happened then it must be due to a designer. This will hold until we do know the step or steps. What will you do then? Your gaps increase in number, but decrease in size.
You post on an open forum. Why are you whining and crying when your flawed logic and irrational claims are called?
I agree with your previous claims that you don't understand evolution and have a very limited knowledge of the subject. Random mutation has been shown to be a source of variation on which evolution has occurred.
Not only is it possible that eyes might later evolve, it has happened independently with about 30 or so different taxa.
You have to show evidence of a designers and a designers intent before you can claim that one creature or another has a certain feature or not. You are dragging your horse.
No, that is not my argument at all... Refrain from twisting your interlocutor's words in the future. It might lead to an actual conversation taking place.

I'm whining because some people, you being among them, can't offer a rational argument worth a damn, and resort to telling me I don't know what I'm talking about because they misinterpret my words. I guess pointing that out means whining. So be it then.

Yeah, it's happened about 30 times. Maybe. Do you know how it happened? Natural selection acting on random mutations you say? Great. Got any more questions to beg?
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#40 Jun 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah your first substantial answer.
CONGRATULATIONS.
The evolution of the eye is very well understood:
1. light sensitive molecules on the membrane of certain single cellular organisms
2. pockets of light sensitive cells in a multicellular organism: a BIG evolutionary advantage because the organism now can distinguish dark and light and regulate its metabolism accordingly
3. depression or a fold in the light sensitive area allows for limited directional sensitivity. BIG advantage
4. a pinhole eye allows for better directional sensitivity and limited imagining. NEXT improvement
5. the pinhole closed by a transparent membrane decreases the eye hole to be polluted by debris or infected easily
6. the membrane thickened to a lens is a further enhancement
7. the lens able to distract produces better focus
Speculative?
ALL eye types 1-8 and even many stages in between are present in extant species living today.
You may explain why all eye types 1-8 and even all kinds of intermediaries exist in extant species is speculative.
My first substantial answer? I'm still waiting for yours. This certainly doesn't qualify. Maybe if you understood what this thread is about then you'd have a different opinion. Nah. I'm giving you too much credit.

You can show how each of these steps confers an advantage. I agree. Can you show that each of these steps are possible through random mutations? Can you show that each of these steps, specifically, occurs through single mutations? If not, can you show that the intermediate steps between them enhance the organism? Can you actually show anything of substance when it matters most?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#41 Jun 16, 2014
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly explain, not tell a tale, how threats or treats enhance survival & reproduction chances. I can feel another just-so coming up but may be you'll surprise me.
LGk, you're an ass whether you post as LGK or whether you take the coward's route and deceptively change your name to evolutionisstupid and mask your point of origin as Israel.

No one is fooled.

LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min replaytime 67,322
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 6 min Subduction Zone 353
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Into The Night 28,678
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Subduction Zone 383
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,967
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr pshun2404 174
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3,538
More from around the web