10

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

Natural selection is the very opposite of "random."
Why is random random?
(IF you think hard, you might start to see your '10')

(PS: You'll have to abandon your attempts to try to unseat me with bluff about ignorance. I am no novice to debate. All you will do is end up with egg on your face. Save yourself the pain).

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

Evolution has no "upward" movement. There is no direction. It is a natural process
Good thing it naturally goes up hey? Whew!

"More" (as in more complex) is 'up', "higher" is most usually 'up', and complex is 'up' from simple.
I don't play "heads I win, tails you lose with anyone".
If you wish to tout the virtues of movement toward higher comlexity in your usual evolution trollop, then you may not abandon ship and transfer to a submarine here.

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".

well ignoring the fact that your translation of post hoc ergo propter hoc is incorrect, I would be interested to know how, in a situation where there is differential reproductive success, those who breed more are less successful.

But evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts, so this thread is designed to put the issue into a simple framework.

Let us use the number '4' to represent the current state of a supposed evolved entity.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, or some assistance/partnership, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary utility/purpose of '4'.
Let us use the number '10' to represent an ultimate utility/purpose of '4'.

The dialogue:
Creationist: "how did '4' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because '4' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with two lots of '1'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because '10' divided by '2' produces '5'! Why is it that '10' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

(The evolutionist, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what, immediately invokes his higher-than-usual evolved thought-blocking ability, and declares proudly but irrelevantly: "natural selection!".)

you forgot variation and differential reproductive success. your constant focus on natural selection betrays the fact that you don't know alot about evolution.

the part highlighted in green seems somewhat misrepresentative. #5 would have to be advantageous over #4 in terms of breeding success, and I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise, and assuming that 2x#5 can indeed give #10 then all we need is a duplication, which may well be perfectly possible if #5 has become prevalent in the population anyway. Things would of course be affected somewhat by genetic drift and so on, but the "abstract" example is far too simplistic to really apply any proper example to. note that I am thinking of the numbers less in terms of a "ranking of goodness" and more in terms of actual physical properties, or perhaps genes, so for exmple, the case where a homozygote is better than a heterozygote.

L'Anatra · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
Natural selection is the very opposite of "random."
Why is random random?
(IF you think hard, you might start to see your '10')

(PS: You'll have to abandon your attempts to try to unseat me with bluff about ignorance. I am no novice to debate. All you will do is end up with egg on your face. Save yourself the pain).

There is no "10" regardless of what mind-games you try to play with a more novice "debator." Your threat is an inane and empty one.

Somehow I don't think--even if you were to win any "debate"--that you have any effect on the way our world operates in actuality.

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
Evolution has no "upward" movement. There is no direction. It is a natural process
Good thing it naturally goes up hey? Whew!

please define "up" in an evolutionary context.

USincognito · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
(PS: You'll have to abandon your attempts to try to unseat me with bluff about ignorance. I am no novice to debate. All you will do is end up with egg on your face. Save yourself the pain).

Isn't Hubris a sin?

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

#5 would have to be advantageous over #4 in terms of breeding success,
"Success" is your '10'. You fail to notice your own absolutes.

The success of anything, in a world without omniscient force of purpose, is no better than its failure. Your inclination to think otherwise, attests to your '10'.

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

this thread is the lol

Colossians said:
(PS: You'll have to abandon your attempts to try to unseat me with bluff about ignorance. I am no novice to debate. All you will do is end up with egg on your face. Save yourself the pain).

and the counterevidence to the bolded text.

Colossians said:
As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".

hmm....misuse of parody....do we know you?

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
#5 would have to be advantageous over #4 in terms of breeding success,
"Success" is your '10'. You fail to notice your own absolutes.

in the absence of a #10 would a #5 be more successful in a breeding sense than a #4? success is only based on the current situation, evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.

L'Anatra · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
Evolution has no "upward" movement. There is no direction. It is a natural process
Good thing it naturally goes up hey? Whew!

"More" (as in more complex) is 'up', "higher" is most usually 'up', and complex is 'up' from simple.
I don't play "heads I win, tails you lose with anyone".
If you wish to tout the virtues of movement toward higher comlexity in your usual evolution trollop, then you may not abandon ship and transfer to a submarine here.

Actually, no. Evolution does not have a progression as you apparently presume it does. It is a natural process whereby a population of organisms adapts to its environment. Nothing more.

You lose regardless of what "games" you play.

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

Jet Black thinks he is on to something (thinks he can smell his '10' in this debate).

His nose is blocked.

L'Anatra · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
#5 would have to be advantageous over #4 in terms of breeding success,
"Success" is your '10'. You fail to notice your own absolutes.

The success of anything, in a world without omniscient force of purpose, is no better than its failure. Your inclination to think otherwise, attests to your '10'.

Evolution is not atheism!

How dare you presume you know God's purpose?

Jet Black · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
Jet Black thinks he is on to something (thinks he can smell his '10' in this debate).

His nose is blocked.

in the absence of a #10 would a #5 be more successful in a breeding sense than a #4? success is only based on the current situation, evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.

also, could you define "up" in an evolutionary context?

L'Anatra · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
Jet Black thinks he is on to something (thinks he can smell his '10' in this debate).

His nose is blocked.

Oooh, now we resort to the ad-hominem attack.

Sopharos · Aug 6, 2004

"10" is not an aim, it's a result.

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

It is a natural process whereby a population of organisms adapts to its environment. Nothing more.
Well then you won't be telling us we came from more primitive life forms then will you.
And you'll strike "primitive" from your terminology. After all, it's just a natural process. It could all reverse tommorrow right?

Mistermystery · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
I pointed out in the OP that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts.

Such has been evidenced so far by:
One honest answer (Magnus).
One dishonest piece of false indignation (Nathan Poe) who thinks he can call my bluff.

So when someone disagrees with you it's "false indignation"? Hah.

Nothing to see in this thread. Move allong.

L'Anatra · Aug 6, 2004

Colossians said:
It is a natural process whereby a population of organisms adapts to its environment. Nothing more.
Well then you won't be telling us we came from more primitive life forms then will you.
And you'll strike "primitive" from your terminology. After all, it's just a natural process. It could all reverse tommorrow right?

No. Primitive is a relative term and has no meaning in the context of evolution. We came from life forms different to us. Just as any other contemporary organism did.

Colossians · Aug 6, 2004

"10" is not an aim, it's a result.
At least one of your camp has agreed there is a '10'.

9 out of 10! Sophora!
Now all you have to do is realise that if you think the "result" is good, then it is in fact your '10', and you get the extra mark.

10

Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

a post by Alan Smithee

Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Veteran

Here's looking at you kid

Contributor

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency