The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Nathan David · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Inside Edge was talking about time period when ther was no idea about [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse](according to his theory). Yet, they were desperate to continue their family line or species??

No, they were not desperate. Where did you get that idea?

Intrepid99 said:
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and sex is basic instinct that succedes Survial and shelter. How can they progress to the next level of thinking about their future and children before they had the idea about sex?

They don't have to think about it at all. Thinking does not result in genetic change.

Intrepid99 said:
They divide. They dont have sex. I guess they dont get any [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from dividing.

But other microorganisms do have sex, as do plants. None of them have any capacity to feel pleasure or desire.

Intrepid99 said:
If they did, theory of evolution has to be false. Because they would have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] every 20 minutes. Which would make them extremely happy and they would remain as microorganisms forever.

What would being happy have to do with evolving?

Intrepid99 said:
Where did that replication instinct evolve from? As I said, microorganisms would not get any pleasure from dividing.

What does pleasure have to do with evolution?

Inside Edge · Aug 4, 2004

I think you wandered off the line here when you said "but knows that sex is necessary for procreation" - "knows" being the problem word here.

Fair enough. I knew the word "knows" was going to get me in trouble, but I didn't have enough understanding (details) to do any better than that.

Which is why I admitted that I didn't know where the instincts to reproduce sexually came from (at least not with enough understanding to defend it with scientific detail).
Pureone and Jet Black are doing a fine job of explaining it, though!

Mistermystery · Aug 4, 2004

Did I miss anything important in the last 7 pages, or do I need to reread them all because something intresting was posted?

Intrepid99 · Aug 4, 2004

again, instinct is not the thought ,instead a chemical process that drives the need to reproduce. There is no thinking in reproduction. quit giving human attributes to all living beings. You have it backwards. sex evolved as a means to reproduce, and it is still a chemically driven act, just like in every organism

Need and desire and synonyms. When you fail to explain this evolution for need.
All your answers dosent make any sense.

Intrepid99 · Aug 4, 2004

Nathan David said:
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], as we told you 20 pages ago.

Did you say that you yourself or the wall? Not one answer is legitimate. We have answered almost all of them. I will be back in the evening to answer the questions that you will pose now.

Intrepid99 · Aug 4, 2004

Nathan David said:
No, they were not desperate. Where did you get that idea?

They don't have to think about it at all. Thinking does not result in genetic change.

But other microorganisms do have sex, as do plants. None of them have any capacity to feel pleasure or desire.

What would being happy have to do with evolving?

What does pleasure have to do with evolution?

These answers are for Inside Edge. Look at past 3 pages and that would explain. Now, whats your answer? What came first? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

Dark_Lite · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Need and desire and synonyms. When you fail to explain this evolution for need.
All your answers dosent make any sense.

Wrong.

Need = necessary to live.

Desire = something you get pleasure from, but it is not necessary for survival.

Nathan Poe · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
These answers are for Inside Edge. Look at past 3 pages and that would explain. Now, whats your answer? What came first? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. How can you have a desire for something if it doesn't exist and you have no idea what it is?

(hmmm.... on second thought, Theism comes to mind... )

DJ_Ghost · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Did you say that you yourself or the wall? Not one answer is legitimate.

"Fallacy of Ignoring alternatives" and the fallacy of "Use all rather than some" in one go here. Note also the rhetorical question with no point other than to cause emotional agitation in the recipient ( Did you say that you yourself or the wall?). A common tactic intended to elicit an emotive response from the opponent rather than a considered one, in this way the person using the tactic hopes their opponent response will include an error born from a snap response that can be seized upon to attempt to undermine the opponent.

Intrepid99 said:
We have answered almost all of them.

Fallacy of appealing to others for authority. We have seen Colosiums arguments crumble under an argument analysis, yet We is used here to construct a other people agree with me so my position is stronger argument.

You are truly a disciple of Collosiums.

We also see the following conclusion;

Intrepid99 said:
Not one answer is legitimate.

but when searching for the reason for the conclusion we instead find another conclusion;

Intrepid99 said:
We have answered almost all of them.

This conclusion is also devoid of a reason.

We do see an inference;

Intrepid99 said:
I will be back in the evening to answer the questions that you will pose now.

but with a lack of the usual inference indicators (thus, therefore etc...) which is significant. In this instance the inference is made sans the usual inference indicator in order to present the inference as a conclusion when it is not. Due to the nature of the addendum to the inference (I will be back in the evening to...) we can see the poster is setting up another fallacy, this time the fallacy of False credentials. The wording is deliberately aping the type of language one might expect from a teacher or professor forced to leave a debate in mid session to attend to another task, or one that is informing the class they will be available later to help them with their home work.

So in short we have an argument constructed entirely of conclusions without reasons for the conclusions, with a set up for a fallacy use appended to the end.

Ghost

Nathan David · Aug 4, 2004

To summarize:

Sexual reproduction evolved before [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Then desire for sex evoloved.

Then [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolved.

In animals that can feel pleasure, feelings of pleasure associated with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolved.

"Desire" for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is a psychological response to the pleasure feelings that come with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. It is related to, but not the same as, desire for sex.

DJ_Ghost · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Did you say that you yourself or the wall? Not one answer is legitimate. We have answered almost all of them. I will be back in the evening to answer the questions that you will pose now.

My previous post was an argument analysis of your post, this one shall be my rebuttal, I thought I would keep them separate for simplicities sake.

Intrepid99 said:
Did you say that you yourself or the wall? Not one answer is legitimate.

Please explain why you feel that almost all of the answers are illegitimate and which ones you feel are legitimate. The argument that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolved before the desire for it developed is legitimate. The argument that desire for it did not evolve but developed (the former being a biological term and the latter being a psychological one, learn the difference, understand the differance0 is also legitimate. However their is a difference between a legitimate argument and a correct one so by all means present a rebuttal to them if you wish. Preferably a legitimate (i.e none fallacious) one.

Intrepid99 said:
We have answered almost all of them. I will be back in the evening to answer the questions that you will pose now.

You have answered none of them satisfactorily. Colosiums simple repeated You are Wrong in many different ways and when pushed offered a post that must hold the record for most number of fallacies used in a single post of equivalent size. Further he called for inductive thought, insisting we would agree with him if only we would do him the service of thinking inductively (i.e. making leaps of logic that a thing must be so despite a lack of observed evidence to support it) rather than the deductive logic we have used (ie. that one can only take a thing to be an accurate representation of truth if one can find evidence that it occurs as described).

So the arguments on your side of the fence have been based on a demonstrable failure to understand evolutionary theory, argumentative fallacies revealed by a simple argument analysis, and an appeal to use a method of critical thought that has proven to be flawed and faulty for some considerable time and is no longer given much credence in academic thought. I am sorry but based on those points I find the arguments form your camp less than compelling.

Ghost

funyun · Aug 4, 2004

Jeez, this thread is still going?

Why hasn't it been shut down yet? The question in the OP was answered like 22 pages ago, and at least 5 times on every page since then.

Intrepid99 · Aug 4, 2004

"instinct" is a dubious word to use here. the definition of instinct is "inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli" - and it is difficult to say if a microorganism can really be said to have "behaviour". Really, microorganisms have nothing more than reflex - an automatic unlearned reaction to a stimulus, in their case the reflex is chemical and the result of the actions of various genes which behave differently depending on the concentrations of the various chemicals and proteins in their internal and immediately external environment.

The definition of instinct as you said, 'inborn pattern of behaviour often responsive to specific stimuli', now, what is the cause for that stimuli? Stimuli is nothing but incentive. How is it inborn pattern when the parents of the offsprings dont have it?

for example, how does a bacterium know to metabolise, say, starch? well it doesn't "know". What happens is, that in the presence of a certain quantity of starch, certain proteins permanently present in the cytoplasm attach to the starch and chop it up, or possibly as a result of the lack of sugar, certain proteins that normally attach to sugar, have no sugar attached to them (because there isn't any) and by purely chemical processes, the protein changes shape into a shape that might for example allow it to attach to a region of the DNA, which then stimulates other proteins (again by purely chemical reactions) to RNA and then produce an enzyme that chops the starch into sugar. The increasing prevalence of sugar in the cytoplasm means that sugar again attaches to our original proteins, which can now no longer attach to the DNA (because of the reverse of the earlier chemical reaction, they change shape into one that can no longer attach to the DNA), and the production of enzymes stops. there could be other enzymes (which again may only be produced under certain sircumstances) which cut up the starch chopping enzymes so that not too much sugar is produced. this is all just made up from the top of my head, since I don't know the particular metabolic pathways, but in principle, this is how it works. if you do a bit of a search for metabolic pathways, you will come across these sorts of cascades of reactions often.

This dosent explain anything about evolution or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for it. You are just explaining the mechanics of God's creation.

Sopharos · Aug 4, 2004

Intrepid99 said:
Now, Look at your another post,

In the first post, you said that there is something called incentive in animals that would motivate for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

In the next post, you say that they dont have any conscience of what they are evolving into. Which also means that they lack the instinct for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] when they are in a process of evolving. Or why they are evolving.

You contradict yourself.

What a b*stardization. Any person with at least a fair amount brain cells in their endocranial cavity can surely figure out what is the difference between those two quotes. That incentive was GIVEN to the organisms, regardless of desire. Organisms cannot develope features that are evolutionary advantages out of pure desire, which was what the second quote was talking about.

Man, no wonder each time Creationists go to the quote mines, the Earth experiences a shift in its rotation. If I was dead as you made a mincemeat out of my quotes just like you just did here, I would be spinning in my grave too.

Orbyss · Aug 4, 2004

The original question is one that seems to have come of pure ignorance. If people only try to look for the evidence, or even study high school level biology, evolution, and natural selection within animals (including humans), it would have already given some answers to the original question.

In just the same way many Christians will ask nonbelievers to pray for the answers, evolutionists such as myself ask Christians to study the evidence given by living things today. One can argue that these are not "hard proof," but neither is the bible or feeling god's presence as you pray.

My own answer, in short, is that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] differs from organism to organism. A plant's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is so different there is no way we can know what it's like. However, it's all the same idea. An [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is simply a chemical reward for passing on your genetic material. So, they have always existed, in one way or another, together. In species where the cost of having offspring is higher, or if sex is built into the social behaviour of a species, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is more rewarding.

Are you are insinuating that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is a godly attribute? Well, with all due respect, you have to be joking.

Asimov · Aug 4, 2004

Are you are insinuating that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is a godly attribute? Well, with all due respect, you have to be joking.

Well...if you are insinuating that an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is somehow from "Satan", then you must be joking as well!

Orbyss · Aug 4, 2004

Well...if you are insinuating that an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is somehow from "Satan", then you must be joking as well!

Uh, why yes, because I am atheist I must believe in Satan because I uh, am one of his minions set forth to turn you all against GOD.

Really, people, I have NOTHING against Guaranteed Overnight Delivery.

Asimov · Aug 4, 2004

Uh, why yes, because I am atheist I must believe in Satan because I uh, am one of his minions set forth to turn you all against GOD.

Really, people, I have NOTHING against Guaranteed Overnight Delivery.

Oh, you're a fellow atheist! Well, nevermind then

If God did exist, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be one thing I'd thank him for.

DJ_Ghost · Aug 5, 2004

Asimov said:
Oh, you're a fellow atheist! Well, nevermind then

If God did exist, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be one thing I'd thank him for.

[joke]
Her surely? I mean how else do you explain the female multiple [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
[/joke]

Ghost

Magnus Vile · Aug 5, 2004

funyun said:
Jeez, this thread is still going?

Why hasn't it been shut down yet? The question in the OP was answered like 22 pages ago, and at least 5 times on every page since then.

Because we can't have answered it because its a question we can't answer. Didn't you see the title? We've been caught out in our Satanic beliefs...

Does it ever occur to the original posters of threads like these that no one is more vicious in attacking a theory than another scientist? Imagine the rewards a scientist would get if he managed to falsify evolution...

The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Here's looking at you kid

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Chewbacha

Well-Known Member

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Trad Goth

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

Senior Member

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Member

Objectivist

Member

Objectivist

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency