The question Evolutionsists can't answer

[Intrepid99]

(From the pen of Aggie)
I think what Colossians may have been asking is how animals first started mating when they hadn't yet evolved the desire to do so.
Not quite, but you have preserved the conundrum, so I will let this one through.

Mating first evolved as a variation on a much older tactic, which was for the male to fertilize the female's eggs after she had already laid them. At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he WANTED to fertilize the female's eggs BEFORE she laid them,
At this point we will stop you: you have simply begged the question.

And you are also using an invalid example: one in which the participant is male, and therefore one in which such participant has come into existence by the very mechanism you are trying to evolve: sexual urge for pleasure. Once again, evolutionism is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.





(From the pen of Nathan David)
It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so
For the purposes of this thread, “wanted” and “instincts” are synonymic. You have simply begged the question.

This trait emerged by chance, not desire.
Attempting to bury a very motive force of desire under the inanimate “trait” is not permitted. You are simply concealing and diffusing, not answering.
And this "trait" being itself desire, it is contradictory to declare its emergence as exclusive of desire.

It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.
Redundant: you have the ends producing the path to it. You posit current utility as the path to current utility. We ask you how it got there, and you tell us why what is here is useful. You simply beg the question.
You should study some logic at tertiary level.






(From the pen of Sophorus)
Now tell us how it 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] can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)
Time for Kindergarten Evolution.
[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 mutation, a mutation which is and evolutionary advantage, that is, it allows the organism possessing this mutation to be on the favorable side of natural selection
You have simply begged the question. Time for you to go back to kindergarten.

So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Started as a mutation,
Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?


Therefore, those that don't possess this mutation died out, and those that do survives. Simple.
Not simple: simplistic.
You have failed to address the issue of the thread at any stage during all your posts. Your parroting of the concept of natural selection is totally redundant from both the scientific aspect (natural selection cannot be applied to entities that do no reproduce – the most high-profile evolutionists admit to this), and from the logical aspect: you have rain falling because people are wearing rain-coats.

Dude, they were exceptionally good. May God abudantly use you to glorify you. You will be in my prayers.

 

[the_gloaming]

Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?

From one piece of DNA to another. Maybe a new gene was created ? Maybe an old one was changed? Maybe several genes are involved and perception exists on several levels? I'm sure you know the mechanisms of DNA mutations. I expect the genes involved have something to do with proteins within the nervous system and brain capacity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

May God abudantly use you to glorify you.

I'm sure this was the general idea.

 

[Sopharos]

You have simply begged the question. Time for you to go back to kindergarten.

Fire away.

Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?

Mutations doesn't have to come from "somewhere". Mutations just happen. There are three kinds of mutations: Point mutations, Insertions and Deletions, none of which ever had to "come from somewhere" at all. They just happen.

Not simple: simplistic.
You have failed to address the issue of the thread at any stage during all your posts. Your parroting of the concept of natural selection is totally redundant from both the scientific aspect (natural selection cannot be applied to entities that do no reproduce – the most high-profile evolutionists admit to this), and from the logical aspect: you have rain falling because people are wearing rain-coats.

Did I say they didn't reproduce? No.

If you don't enjoy reproducing, you are less likely to be willing to invest the time and energy to reproduce (ESPECIALLY for a female, because females always invest VASTLY more time and energy reproducing than males).

As for all the others, well I guess you're literal to understand simplications.

Let me introduce you to the concept of competition:

Darwin may have told you that it's all about "survival of the fittest." Well, that's wrong. It's actually "survival of the most prductive", meaning who ever produces more offsprings will simply outcompete those that produce less.

So, imagine a population of 10 breeding pairs of individuals with phenotype A, each producing two pairs of offsprings for the next generation. In this case they may reproduce according to, I dunno, maybe a set biological clock like the Protists, maybe according to season. Whatver. So we have:

10A 100% A
20A 100% A
40A 100% A
80A 100% A
160A 100% A

and so on.

Now A is a phenotype, that is, it's a physical or biological characteristic that affects the way it functions within its echological niche at the time, so it differs from genotype, which is genetic type. So while there is still genetic variation within the population, it does not show because in current conditions all individuals function as phenotype A.

But suddenly, phenotype B appears, with a mutation that causes it to produce twice as many offprings as phenotype A. This is why such mutation is called an evolutionary advantage: it causes those of phenotype B to reproduce more often and produce more offsprings that phenotype A.

Such change in phenotypic compositions can occure in two ways, or a combination of both. Either that a mutation occured when this generation was born:

1B 1A 50% B 50% A
4B 2A 67% B 33% A

Or the environment changed, cutting A's productivity by half, and a new phenotype, which under previous conditions would have functions identically to phenotype A, was revealed to be evolutionarily advantageous.

1B 1A 50% B 50% A
2B 2A 50% B 50% A
<<<Environmental change, A's productivity cut by half>>>
4B 2A 67% B 33% A

So as you can see, phenotype B is beginning to take over.

Now, go back to the population 10A. Say, one of the 10A developed a primitive kind of [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]; maybe a tiny modification to the already available nervous system. 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] causes the breeding pair to reproduce at twice the rate of normal A pairs. These organisms no longer function like phenotype A, and are instead designated as phenotype B. Now, watch as phenotype B slowly takes over the population after successive gnerations:

1B 9A 10% B 90% A
4B 18A 18% B 82% A
16B 36A 31% B 69% A
64B 72A 47% B 53% A
256B 144A 64% B 36% A

And when phenotype C comes along, this time with a a more specialised and stronger [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 now producing 8 offprings instead of 4, phenotype C would then in turn dominates over phenotype B. This is what caused specialisation.

Of course, this is exaggerated. In the real thing, the net growth in a population's phenotype would only be minute, because 1) an evolutionarily advantaged mutation would only have a small effect, and 2) other factors, such as offspring motality. This means any domination of any phenotype would occur over a very long period of time - and fortunately they DID have millions of years and countless generations to do this, which is how it was possible.

So there, that's how a simple mutation became evolution.

 

[Dale]

Colossians,
As to their allegedly being a question Evolutionists can't answer, I've asked several questons of Creationists on this board. I've yet to get an answer to any of them.

 

[Jesusfreekwanabe]

i skipped over like 3 pages of info , cause this is a lot ! but collations if u had a little rep thing , id give u a hug !

 

[Nathan David]

(From the pen of Nathan David)
It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so
For the purposes of this thread, “wanted” and “instincts” are synonymic. You have simply begged the question.

What question am I begging?

This trait emerged by chance, not desire.
Attempting to bury a very motive force of desire under the inanimate “trait” is not permitted.

Not permitted? And why is that? Desire for sex is a trait. There is nothing primal or magic about desire, it is just an emotion, caused by chemistry.

(It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.
Redundant: you have the ends producing the path to it. You posit current utility as the path to current utility. We ask you how it got there, and you tell us why what is here is useful.

I did tell you why it got here: chance mutation.

I also told you why it got passed on: utility.

Developing a trait and passing it on are two separate steps. Utility is irrelevant to the first step. Many non-useful traits are developed but not passed because they confer no survival advantage or confer a disadvantage.

I suggest you stop insulting people. We have been very patient with you despite the insults and despite the fact that your original question has been answered several times.

 

[Jet Black]

I wonder which came first, the response to Heroin, or the desire for more of the response to Heroin. Just think of all those desires for all those millions of drugs that we haven't even invented yet, embedded in us.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

What question am I begging?

He is misusing the term horribly. What he is trying to do is accuse you of making a tautologeous statement (which is also false, but that’s what he is trying to do). I have only ever seen 3 people use the phrase in this way, the others were all Philosophy freshmen. Given his earlier grandiose statements about the primacy of philosophy I am willing to bet he is as well. (They tend to learn why philosophy does not hold such an exalted state of primacy around their second or third year). Remember he also blithely insisted you learn to think inductively, evidently blissfully unaware of the twin problems of induction illustrated by Popper and the reasons that inductive logic has fallen from favour in serious academic thought.

Not permitted? And why is that?

Why in order to limit your potential responses of course. Here we see him using what Thouless and Thouless (1990) termed “The Fallacy of Illegitimate definition” where by one falsely closes down alternative perspectives to ones own with appeals to overly restrictive definitions or none existent rules. Again it is a common enough tactic in philosophy and is one of the reasons philosophy has failed to contribute anything of much significance to the body of human knowledge since Popper, and even then it was philosophers of science and philosophers of social science rather than philosophers in general that gave us anything useful. Of the 37 Falacies identified by Thouless and Thouless we see Colossus displaying at least ten during this thread.

Interestingly, whilst he accuses his opponents of “Running round in circles” (Fallacy of false content), by only dealing with the posts and points he feels he can refute (Fallacy of Ignoring alternatives), which he claims is done because evolutionists have a unified agenda of some kind (Fallacy of claiming prejudice), we see him increase his use of technical terminology and longer words in latter posts as he begins to worry about not being able to hold his ground. In doing so he demonstrates use of what T+T call the “Fallacy of technical language“. He compounds this by using “the fallacy of special pleading” when he claims a state of primacy for Philosophy. By ignoring those people who point out that evolution does not equal atheism he uses the “Fallcy of extremities” to attempt to polarise all participants and lurkers into two camps, giving him an opening for the use of the “Fallacy of playing on the reader” (in this case giving one camp what they want to hear so they will rally to defend his attack on the opposing camp).

I don’t know if he has never read the likes of Hart, Hinderer and Thouless and Thouless or if he is assuming we haven’t.

Ghost

 

[Jet Black]

/me makes a mental note not to argue with DJ_Ghost

 

[Colossians]

(The gloaming)
Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?
From one piece of DNA to another. Maybe a new gene was created ? Maybe an old one was changed? Maybe several genes are involved and perception exists on several levels...
Feel free to actually answer the above question at any time.






(Sophorus)
Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?
Mutations doesn't have to come from "somewhere". Mutations just happen.
Now read the above question again.

If you don't enjoy reproducing, you are less likely to be willing to invest the time and energy to reproduce
So one who does not know what he is missing, will be less likely to produce than one who is not missing what is missing. Redundant.
You have to tell us how what was missing was found, and more importantly, how it was realised that it was found.

Now A is a phenotype, &#8230;But suddenly, phenotype B appears, with a mutation that causes it to produce twice as many offprings as phenotype A. This is why such mutation is called an evolutionary advantage: it causes those of phenotype B to reproduce more often and produce more offsprings that phenotype A.
Once again you speak past the point. The advantage you refer to here is supposed to be sexual urge brought about by anticipation of sexual pleasure. You have yet to address the issue of the thread: how did this pleasure come into being?

Now, go back to the population 10A. Say, one of the 10A developed a primitive kind of [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];
Now tell us why.





(Nathan David)
It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so
For the purposes of this thread, &#8220;wanted&#8221; and &#8220;instincts&#8221; are synonymic. You have simply begged the question.
What question am I begging?
Go to the OP.

Desire for sex is a trait. There is nothing primal or magic about desire, it is just an emotion, caused by chemistry.
Now tell us the answer to the OP.

I did tell you why it got here: chance mutation.
The 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], [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] itself?

your original question has been answered several times.
It is unlikely that you have answered a question you do not understand.

 

[Jet Black]

I think Colossions needs to learn a bit more about instincts and neurochemistry.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I did tell you why it got here: chance mutation.
The 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], [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] itself?

[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] itself. The trap you are falling into is assuming that the 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] exists independently of the desire for pleasurable stimuli when it does not. As Jet Black later demonstrates, desire for pleasurable stimuli pre-exists in any organism with a sufficiently complex nervous system, there fore anything we later discover to be a pleasurable stimuli will stand a chance of becoming a desire (subject to cost/benefit trade offs).

your original question has been answered several times.
It is unlikely that you have answered a question you do not understand.

He understood the question its just that you either didn’t understand the answer he gave or do not find the answer to be compelling enough for you to accept it.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I think Colossions needs to learn a bit more about instincts and neurochemistry.

Yes I agree.

Ghost

 

[Sopharos]

Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?
Now read the above question again.

Already answered that question. Mutations just happen spontaneously, that's a fact - doesn't even have to be a scientific one. Mutations do not occur from anything.

So one who does not know what he is missing, will be less likely to produce than one who is not missing what is missing. Redundant.

More wordplay. "Know" is irrelevant. Subjects of the evolutionary process do not have ANY conscience as to what they are evolving into.

You have to tell us how what was missing was found, and more importantly, how it was realised that it was found.

Already told you. Beneficial mutation. Competition. Specialisation. It wasn't "found".

Once again you speak past the point. The advantage you refer to here is supposed to be sexual urge brought about by anticipation of sexual pleasure. You have yet to address the issue of the thread: how did this pleasure come into being?

As I've already answered earlier in this thread, the urge to 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] comes as a result of pleasure during sex being already there. So, once again: Beneficial mutation. Competition. Specialisation.

Now tell us why.

No reason. It's a mutation. It just happened. Beneficial mutation. Competition. Specialisation.

What's so hard to understand?

 

[Cassandra]

Here's a question I'm surprised hasn't been asked. It might be too late to start real, honest discussion...but it can't hurt to try.


A lot of people on here say 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 an incentive for sex/reproduction. Well, what about the fact 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] can be achieved without having sex?

I imagine it's because we don't have sex just to 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], but [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] do make sex that much more enjoyable.

I think I read somewhere that some people (women mostly, I think) can't 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]. Don't remember where though.



Oh, and in answer to the OP:

I dunno...you'd think 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] came first. Either way, God is responsible for it.

 

[Sopharos]

Here's a question I'm surprised hasn't been asked. It might be too late to start real, honest discussion...but it can't hurt to try.


A lot of people on here say 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 an incentive for sex/reproduction. Well, what about the fact 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] can be achieved without having sex?

And? Humans, with their open-programme intelligence, are able to develope new uses for existing structures. Humans 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] during sex, or knew the experience through non-intercourse sexual experiences, then they develope ways to stimulate 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] without sex.

I imagine it's because we don't have sex just to 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], but [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] do make sex that much more enjoyable.

And enjoyable it is. A perfect incentive to reproduce as often as possible.

I think I read somewhere that some people (women mostly, I think) can't 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]. Don't remember where though.

Indeed, nearly half of all women suffer from sexual deficiency. Sometimes it's just a difference of one flap of skin, sometimes its hormonal and arousal problems, sometimes it's just temporary. But in most cases, it's easily fixable.

Oh, and in answer to the OP:

I dunno...you'd think 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] came first. Either way, God is responsible for it.

Indeed, and probably.

And BTW, to Creationists, while what we're discussing here is a natural, Natural =/= No God.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Here's a question I'm surprised hasn't been asked. It might be too late to start real, honest discussion...but it can't hurt to try.

Its always worth a shot.

A lot of people on here say 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 an incentive for sex/reproduction. Well, what about the fact 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] can be achieved without having sex?

I imagine it's because we don't have sex just to 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], but [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] do make sex that much more enjoyable.

An anomaly perhaps? Lacuspa may be the one best equipped to answer that question from a biological standpoint. I could probably give you a Freudian answer but I wouldn’t be convinced by it myself.

Either way, God is responsible for it.

What an odd thing for an Agnostic to say. I would have expected it from a theistic evolutionist such as myself. (Not criticising just observing).

Ghost

 

[Sopharos]

What an odd thing for an Agnostic to say. I would have expected it from a theistic evolutionist such as myself. (Not criticising just observing).

He/she (I don't make assumptions) IS a theistic evolutionist (looked at the profile). I think maybe Cassandra is one of those Christians I've seen before who believe the cross is a "Pagan" symbol and assume the Agnostic icon to avoid such "Paganism."

 

[DJ_Ghost]

He/she (I don't make assumptions) IS a theistic evolutionist (looked at the profile). I think maybe Cassandra is one of those Christians I've seen before who believe the cross is a "Pagan" symbol and assume the Agnostic icon to avoid such "Paganism."

Oh. I see, fair enough then, that makes sense.

Oh and by the way Cassandra, is that a malice Misser pic. as your avatar?

Ghost