Some random discussion on evolution...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's always funny when people who explicitly try to apply the Genesis account to history call evolution 'magic'.

And this trend of lay-people who clearly have no actual scientific knowledge or background that think they can overturn over a full century of research and clear science in the theory of evolution won't stop anytime soon, will it?

 

[Speedwell]

Straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy. The article argues about nothing but it just states two simple facts. Stating facts is neither an argument nor a fallacy.

The article sets out an entirely bogus description of the evolution of bisexual reproduction and then argues against it--a classic straw man fallacy.

 

[Yttrium]

Who cares how "you start" in the world of magic and fantasy called the theory of evolution? Nobody witnessed neither the development of reproductive systems nor imagined evolutionary steps. It's all just the product of fantasy of people who deny reality. The articles talks about observable physical/biological realities and it provides two simple facts that explain why natural processes cannot in principle create functional things. As such, the article has nothing to do with how things operate in your magical kingdom where functions pop into existence via magic words of evolutionists

Sure, you don't need to know anything about evolution to make a detailed argument from incredulity against it. The best defense to an opposing idea is willful ignorance. Thank you for clarifying your position.

 

[pitabread]

Just calling something a conceptual error doesn't make it one.

We spent hundreds of posts in this thread discussing them. Do we really need to go through all of that over again?

I mean, if you want an example your understanding of how you think sexual reproductive organs would have evolved in conceptually wrong. Not only would they not have evolved independently but nobody actually thinks that how they would have evolved in the first place. As Speedwell correctly points out, you're just using your misconception as a strawman argument.

If you spend some time reading about different reproductive strategies you can find examples that are not strict binary sexuality (e.g. parasexuality, asexuality, hermaphroditism, etc). Likewise, read up on the evolution sexual reproduction, a topic which has seen a lot of study of the years.

 

[Ophiolite]

We spent hundreds of posts in this thread discussing them. Do we really need to go through all of that over again?

I mean, if you want an example your understanding of how you think sexual reproductive organs would have evolved in conceptually wrong. Not only would they not have evolved independently but nobody actually thinks that how they would have evolved in the first place. As Speedwell correctly points out, you're just using your misconception as a strawman argument.

If you spend some time reading about different reproductive strategies you can find examples that are not strict binary sexuality (e.g. parasexuality, asexuality, hermaphroditism, etc). Likewise, read up on the evolution sexual reproduction, a topic which has seen a lot of study of the years.

Perhaps if Contradiction were to spend time studying papers such as the following he might revise his views.

Mitochondria, the Cell Cycle, and the Origin of Sex via a Syncytial Eukaryote Common Ancestor

What can we infer about the origin of sex in early eukaryotes?

Evolutionary dynamics of cytoplasmic segregation and fusion: Mitochondrial mixing facilitated the evolution of sex at the origin of eukaryotes

Sex is a ubiquitous, ancient, and inherent attribute of eukaryotic life

Then again, probably not.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Speedwell]

It's always funny how atheists and evolutionists always label every critic of evolution and it's authors without even addressing the critic itself. This is a childish behaviour. Atheists and evolutionists can't actually discuss something. They just label the opposing points of view and resort to name calling. They operate the same as political Left.


This is a textbook example of the above mentioned labeling tactic.



Another example of the labeling tactic.



And another.

Isn't it funny how you all ignored two simple facts presented in the article and just trolled the topic with labels and irrelevant points?


Perhaps if you were to understand what this topic is about you wouldn't troll it with some randomly picked articles.

Perhaps you can help us out then. Yes, we got carried away by the grotesque mischaracterization of the evolution of sexual reproduction and the inaptness of the "lock and key" analogy as description of evolution generally. I don't think anybody mentioned the "but they're still e. coli" whine but that's so stale we mostly tune it out nowadays. So what was the point you were trying to make with that article? Maybe you could do better if you just expressed it in your own words.

 

[pitabread]

And another.

Isn't it funny how you all ignored two simple facts presented in the article and just trolled the topic with labels and irrelevant points?

You mean your claims about the E.coli experiment and human evolution? That was already discussed to death in this thread already.

When it comes to those examples you're looking at comparatively limited windows of evolutionary change while downplaying any evolutionary changes that have occurred, and then using those limited examples to grossly overgeneralize about a process that affects biology on a much greater scope.

It's just the same error you made in the OP all over again.

On top of that, the bulk of the article in question is based around this lock/key analogy for sexual reproduction and creating a complete strawman argument about the evolution of sexual reproduction in the process.

Rather than being "labels and irrelevant points" these are again direct criticisms of the heart of the arguments you try to make. And once again you're just hand-waving any criticism aside without attempting to address them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps if you were to understand what this topic is about you wouldn't troll it with some randomly picked articles.

The point under discussion at present is your misunderstanding of how evolutionary theory accounts for the origin of sex. Thus any material focusing on the origin of sex is relevant.

You also appear to have an interesting definition of random. (Is that the same definition many creationists apply when they claim that evolution is a random process?) I searched specifically for papers that were recent and represented a mix of review and novel concepts. That makes the papers a specific, directed solution - anything but random.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's always funny how atheists and evolutionists always label every critic of evolution and it's authors without even addressing the critic itself. This is a childish behaviour. Atheists and evolutionists can't actually discuss something. They just label the opposing points of view and resort to name calling. They operate the same as political Left.

No, it's a salient point. The mechanisms and science of evolution can easily be learned in simple and easily understood terms, and the process of evolution is incredibly easy to understand.
And yet you call it 'magic'. A term which can more rightly be applied to YEC and any other attempts to put the Genesis account and a literal Bible reading into science.

And the second point stands too. You, in the simplest and most literal terms, are a layperson. You are not an accredited scientists of any stripe or form. So why on Earth do you think that anything you write can overturn nearly a centuries worth, and also a literal globe's worth, of scientific query and findings?

 

[DaisyDay]

The point under discussion at present is your misunderstanding of how evolutionary theory accounts for the origin of sex. Thus any material focusing on the origin of sex is relevant.

No, per the OP, the point of this thread is that evolutionary theory is WRONG; therefore, articles about how it happened are off-topic.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Speedwell]

And still... evolutionists on this topic vehemently ignore the facts I presented in the article, and they do their usual trolling. The facts are as follows:

A) The enormous discrepancy between the universe’s resources and the possible number of structures that won’t fit interdependent structures

B) Nature lacks causality for linking distinctly located or functionality interdependent structures together

It is worth to note here that these two facts have nothing to do with the theory of evolution(ToE) per se. In other words, one can use these facts to disprove the ToE even if he/she never heard of it. This is because the ToE assumes ipso facto the sufficiency of the resources, and the existence of the linking causality. In that sense, nobody cares how evolutionary theory accounts for the origin of sex or whatever. It's all just merely a product of imagination. It's just a bunch of stories that attempt to reconstruct unseen past events. What is important is that the ToE assumes something that denies physical realities.

The ToE believers are modern-day flat-earthers who deny reality because it fits their world view. The discussion with them is pointless. When confronted with facts they can only respond with their usual labeling and name-calling: " an entirely bogus description of the evolution", "the grotesque mischaracterization of the evolution", "grossly overgeneralize", "a straw man argument","it's the same error you made in the OP","it's argument from incredulity ", "if you were to spend time studying papers", "your misunderstanding", "you are a layperson", "you have no actual scientific knowledge or background", "you need to learn a lot more about evolution", "you"..."you"... "you"...

So like I have already said, they can't actually discuss something. They just label the opposing points of view and resort to name-calling.

So are you ready to discuss why your "lock and key" characterization does not describe anything the theory of evolution claims?

 

[pitabread]

And still... evolutionists on this topic vehemently ignore the facts I presented in the article, and they do their usual trolling.

There are at least a half dozen posts specifically discussing the points you raised in the article. Of which you haven't responded to any of them, instead you're just hand-waving away any criticism.

In that sense, nobody cares how evolutionary theory accounts for the origin of sex or whatever. It's all just merely a product of imagination. It's just a bunch of stories that attempt to reconstruct unseen past events. What is important is that the ToE assumes something that denies physical realities.

Not only is this completely incorrect (as has been already discussed in responses to your article), it's completely unsupported by anything you've written.

So like I have already said, they can't actually discuss something. They just label the opposing points of view and resort to name-calling.

Pointing out that you don't have a conceptual understanding of the ToE and you're using a strawman argument isn't name-calling. It's pointing out fundamental flaws with what you have written.

Being dismissive of any critiques and then doubling down on your claims isn't helping your case here.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[VirOptimus]

If I state the fact that the Earth is round how this does not describe anything the flat Earth theory claims? Likewise, if a state the facts that the origin of the locking or sexual reproductive function requires matter to be arranged into the structures (key/male sex apparatus) that fit interdependent structures (lock/female sex apparatus), does not describe anything the ToE claims? So basically what you're saying is that FACTS do not describe anything the ToE claims. Or in short, the facts are wrong and the theory is right. I hope you know now why I said the discussion with you is pointless.

Lots of empty assertions, no substance.

 

[Speedwell]

If I state the fact that the Earth is round how this does not describe anything the flat Earth theory claims? Likewise, if a state the facts that the origin of the locking or sexual reproductive function requires matter to be arranged into the structures (key/male sex apparatus) that fit interdependent structures (lock/female sex apparatus), does not describe anything the ToE claims? So basically what you're saying is that FACTS do not describe anything the ToE claims. Or in short, the facts are wrong and the theory is right. I hope you know now why I said the discussion with you is pointless.

What the theory of evolution does not claim is that the female and male reproductive functions evolved independently of each other.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course, the ToE MUST assume that female and male reproductive functions evolved together. But the whole point is that this denies physical realities, because there is no causality in nature by which functionality interdependent structures will come into existence together. The ToE also denies the enormous discrepancy between the universe’s resources and the possible number of structures that won’t fit interdependent structures (those of the female reproductive system). So the ToE basically denies reality.

Unless you are interested in talking about what the real theory of evolution has to say about how interdependent systems arise I don't think we have anything to discuss.

 

[Yttrium]

...because there is no causality in nature by which functionality interdependent structures will come into existence together.

This is an assertion. There is no basis for your assertion. You're basically trying to define reality your way so evolution can't work in it.

It's also a surprisingly empty assertion. At least flat Earthers have a (weak) Biblical reference for their flat Earth assertions. You don't even have that.