[W:926]The central evolution problem

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

"Dogmatic lies"? Point out the dogma. Then point out its falsehood. Or else go see if there's any beer in the fridge.

Done so may times its getting kinda boring but your latest lie that order means design fits the bill
Now go get me a beer!

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Put up or you know what. First write a coherent sentence in which you show an understanding of my argument. Then in a second sentence provide a counterargument. Your bald assertions don't cut the mustard.

True bald assertions dont cut the mustard and that's what you do.
Now go away and learn some logic and honesty instead of stinking up the forum with your utter garbage or accept the fact that people will continue to point out your lies and illogical nonsense

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Still waiting for someone to explain why life a new complex feature or species cannot evolve in tiny incremental steps.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

There you go playing with definitions and coming to conclusions that aren't rue
Order doesn't imply design

Order is design. Therefore, order implies design. Or do you have an argument to the contrary. An argument, mind you.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Done so may times its getting kinda boring but your latest lie that order means design fits the bill
Now go get me a beer!

Point out the dogma. Then point out its falsehood.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

First it has to be proven that there is intelligence in nature otherwise there is nothing to deny.

Are you part of the natural world?
Do you possess intelligence?
Wake up!

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

You seem to be mirroring vairous arguments used against you back to the person who made them to begin with. That is not very convincing, and your statement about 'the philosophy of materialism' is a straw man.

You also have not presented what is known as 'evidence' or even a workable model that can be tested. That sort of negates your claims here.

She's presented an argument. What have you presented? Besides wind?

 

[Quaestio]

Re: The central evolution problem

You sure have a nasty little habit of sticking your nose into questions that are not directed at you.

And misrepresenting them while projecting his own flawed behavior on to others.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

We have no idea what he is proposing. Some vague natural intelligence. Still no evidence forthcoming.

You can't even get it straight that G4N is a woman, and this despite its having been pointed out to you, despite the female icon in all her posts.
Your opinion is dogma regurgitated. Ain't worth a lick.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Prove that they had that ability. You seem to believe that saying something makes it true. Post some links please.
...

Prove that you understand what she's saying. After all, she's saying something and you're not. You're just posting links that think and speak for you. She's thinking and speaking for herself.

BTW have you figured out after 1200 posts that she's a she?

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Order is design. Therefore, order implies design. Or do you have an argument to the contrary. An argument, mind you.

There you go playing with definitions and coming to conclusions that aren't true
Order doesn't imply design
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that nonsense it will still be garbage
Perhaps you should learn some English as well as logic

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Point out the dogma. Then point out its falsehood.

Your mantra of order implies design garbage or well pretty much any of your posts will do
Now where's my beer?

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

Are you part of the natural world?
Do you possess intelligence?
Wake up!

Yeah wake up your garbage is based on illogical word games and you have been outed

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

There you go playing with definitions and coming to conclusions that aren't true
Order doesn't imply design
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that nonsense it will still be garbage
Perhaps you should learn some English as well as logic

Doesn't matter how many times I repeat my claims, doesn't matter how many times you repeat your counterclaims.
I, however, have offered an argument earlier; you offer no argument, just repetition of counterclaims.
Big difference.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Your mantra of order implies design garbage or well pretty much any of your posts will do
Now where's my beer?

Point out the dogma. Then point out its falsehood.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yeah wake up your garbage is based on illogical word games and you have been outed

Are you part of the natural world?
Do you possess intelligence?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Many great scientists and philosophers have believed in universal intelligence. Calling something "woo" is not a logical argument.

Not having anything to support your claim is woo.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Order is design. Therefore, order implies design. Or do you have an argument to the contrary. An argument, mind you.

Who designed the sand dunes?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Another reason to be skeptical of neo-Darwinism:

Our species is the only one capable of advanced mathematics, complex technology, music and art. The primates we evolved from could count up to three.

Your evolution by chance and selection theory says the human abilities for advanced mathematics, etc., evolved long before it would ever be used.

A very dramatic difference in intellectual and creative ability occurred when homo sapiens appeared. They still had a primitive hunting and gathering lifestyle. They didn't even have agriculture until about 10,000 years ago. And no advanced technology until very recently.

So why did natural selection create abilities that would not be used until about a million years later?

This is not the only problem with neo-Darwinism. There are many. But this problem is very obvious. Convoluted fairy tales have been made up to explain it, but there is no logical explanation.

Try beating this chimp;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHiOCD-0aI

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Prehistoric humans had the same kind of intelligence we have. They did not use most of it. This is an obvious fact.

Primitive hunting/gathering people today have the same kind of intelligence we have. They do not use it. This is obvious.

The human ability for advanced mathematics did not evolve recently, and it did not evolve only in Europeans.

At the same time as technology was advancing in Europe, tribal people in Africa had only the simplest arithmetic. Are you daring to say those Africans were less evolved than the Europeans? If you dare to say that you are not only an extreme racist, you are absolutely wrong.

Why did those tribal Africans have the ability to do calculus? Why did it evolve in people whose ancestors had absolutely no need of it, or of anything similar?

All you can do is find ridiculous fairy tales to explain it.

Another example is the ability to read and write. Until quite recently, most people were illiterate. Yet everyone had the ability to learn to read and write. How did natural selection create this ability, when almost no one used it?

Once again no links to proof.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Still waiting for someone to explain why life a new complex feature or species cannot evolve in tiny incremental steps.

That has still to be explained.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Prehistoric humans had the same kind of intelligence we have. They did not use most of it. This is an obvious fact.

Primitive hunting/gathering people today have the same kind of intelligence we have. They do not use it. This is obvious.

The human ability for advanced mathematics did not evolve recently, and it did not evolve only in Europeans.

At the same time as technology was advancing in Europe, tribal people in Africa had only the simplest arithmetic. Are you daring to say those Africans were less evolved than the Europeans? If you dare to say that you are not only an extreme racist, you are absolutely wrong.

Why did those tribal Africans have the ability to do calculus? Why did it evolve in people whose ancestors had absolutely no need of it, or of anything similar?

All you can do is find ridiculous fairy tales to explain it.

Another example is the ability to read and write. Until quite recently, most people were illiterate. Yet everyone had the ability to learn to read and write. How did natural selection create this ability, when almost no one used it?

It is not at all obvious that primative/stone age humans do not use their intelligence in the area of abstract reasoning.

Further, lets face it, you have no clue about high level maths. You manage. You do not need to understand how to factorise a quadratic equasion. No need.

Despits this lots of the associated skills requierd in the world which involve the same basic processing paths you do all the time.

Maths is sort of the bleeding obvious broken down into very very simplistic parts and then played around with which produces not obvious results.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

#1278

Still waiting for someone to explain why life a new complex feature or species cannot evolve in tiny incremental steps.

#1296

That has still to be explained.

Shame on you, zyzygy. Your post reeks of bad faith and immaturity.
Quag is "still waiting" because he doesn't read any posts but his own.
You, on the other hand, had this explanation given to you 270 posts ago.
Here's how it went:

#1033

...Why can't evolution proceed in incremental steps?

#1035

Why can't evolution proceed in incremental steps? Would you like to withdraw that statement?

#1070

No, zyzygy, gfm7175 did not bring up incremental steps. G4N brought it up.
The incremental steps issue has nothing to do with the thesis gfm7175 is arguing.
The incremental steps argument addresses the impossibility of accounting for the myriad steps toward a complex organ by way of natural selection alone.
Clear?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

It is not at all obvious that primative/stone age humans do not use their intelligence in the area of abstract reasoning.

Further, lets face it, you have no clue about high level maths. You manage. You do not need to understand how to factorise a quadratic equasion. No need.

Despits this lots of the associated skills requierd in the world which involve the same basic processing paths you do all the time.

Maths is sort of the bleeding obvious broken down into very very simplistic parts and then played around with which produces not obvious results.

If any of us were transported back to the Stone Age then I doubt if we would survive for long despite our higher maths.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Who designed the sand dunes?

The laws of nature.