mkmyers45: Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?

davidylan:

I think the only point you truly intended to convey is the personal insult and nothing else. Because i see nowhere that you address the question/subject of this thread. If i get you correctly, influences such as adaptation to environment is a factor in determining longevity? Now where on earth did you get such harebrained nonsense?

Let me ask AGAIN... what is the evolutionary advantage of the elephant having a longer lifespan than the ant? Please explain logically rather than hiding behind veiled and unveiled insults.

Secondly, dying quickly and procreating quicker is an excellent adaptation? For what species? Does that mean animals like the blue whale are not yet perfectly adapted to their environment?

Thirdly, let me say this real quick... christian scientists are not necessarily lazy and many of them are actually far more brilliant intellectually than the half-witted dummies that have been trolling here lately. Yes i do have a phd... many of you barely have a bachelors... so much for your "logic".

davidylan:

and i suppose its your place no?
Another empty vessel just cackling like a toothless old woman. What is your take on the subject? all you've done is just come here and insult. Go on and answer now... empty head.

davidylan:

What an incoherent dunce.
I scored an A1 in biology in JAMB in SS2, a full yr before WAEC.
I started reading my mom's internal medicine textbooks by the time i was 8 so what?

So because you read "all your mom's nursing books" you think you are now qualified to talk about evolution? Being the best in biology in ur school means what? That all the others were dunces unable to pass an exam?

Avicenna:
JAMB dey giv A1 nw? I see.
Shey we dey make mouth ni abi?
Well I scored A1* in molecular biology, JAMB UME, in JSS1, full 6years before my cambridge A-levels

Kay 17:

Cos you have claimed many times without number that Science and the theory of evolution are empirical!! And you try to mismatch Science with your Faith.

That is a foundational problem!

Avicenna:
JAMB dey giv A1 nw? I see.
Shey we dey make mouth ni abi?
Well I scored A1* in molecular biology, JAMB UME, in JSS1, full 6years before my cambridge A-levels

Avicenna:
Let me try again. It is funny explaining evolution to a 'molecular biologist'.

Avicenna:
The most important factor here is overcrowding. Large animals (elephant and whales) have a huge habitat. They can afford to gain a large body the first time and survive with it. They can also easily acquire the energy required to maintain that size.

Avicenna:
(Elephants-herbivores). Smaller animals have smaller habitats.(Ants). Overcrowding will occur when too many grow too large in too little space. That's their adaptation

Avicenna:
Now, you may ask why other marine animals are not as big as the whale. Same reason we randomly evolve a intelligence gene, same way they evolve a gene for their size.

Avicenna:
Truth be told, I don't know about the dinosaurs and their extremely huge size by today's standards but gravity also played a role.

Avicenna:
I know how hard it is to get a Phd. But frankly, you are disgrace to phd holders I know. I said it!

Avicenna:
Most christians scientists you keep hammering accepts evolution but with their own modification to support creationism.

Avicenna:
'Micro evolution do not become macro evolution'. Chai, what a disgrace.

Avicenna: If you can't figure how giraffe got it long necks given it lived in the savannah, I can't help you. I really wanted to add this in my other post(giraffe) but I gave you benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

Avicenna:
Again, evolution has no direction except randomness. Do not try to project your subjective purpose on to it.
Why do we have lizards remain small and elephant are big is frankly a silly question. If you understand what you are talking about that is.

Avicenna:
And I told you some time ago, evolution is caused by a interplay of factors. Do you suffer from amnesia or something?

Avicenna:
Lifespan. I do not know the mechanism behind it. I strongly believe gerontology will reveal plenty. I see no evolutionary imperative for a 500year lifespan anyway.

Avicenna:
After going thru your questions, I finally give up. Those questions can be answered by the most basic understanding of evolution.
Man, I need to start checking all of em phd holders in my school. Gawd knows what I will find

Avicenna:
They miss this all the time. No grand discernible purpose or direction.
Our genes gave us intelligence. Salamander gene gave it regeneration. They assume we must have everything. When controversial research is being conducted to determine the workings of such mechanisms, they hinder such progress on the basis of religion.

Avicenna: Lifespan. I do not know the mechanism behind it. I strongly believe gerontology will reveal plenty. I see no evolutionary imperative for a 500year lifespan anyway.

Uyi Iredia:

Nonsense ! How can purpose arise from something that has no purpose; because it is clear that humans are purposeful. Purpose can only arise where there was a previous purpose because purpose itself is not a physical thing that can be tied to brains. Otherwise, the argument would be made that animals like lions and chimpanzees reminisce on the concept of purpose. Note that purpose is an abstract quality and it is simply stupid to say our genes gave us purpose especially when those genes are patently physical and not abstract as the concept of purpose. I generally find such explanations unacceptable because they are a subtle way of beggging the question of purpose seen in human existence. The ID argument best explains the presence of purpose.

Uyi Iredia: Of course, you M
must cop out by saying that but there should be an evolutionary imperative to survival fitness under varied environmental factors and simplicity of body structure. Whither all the complexity ?

cyrexx:

if you really want to know about evolution and not looking for loopholes in science so as to justify religion. these resources will be helpful. trust me, they are not bogus, they are from reliable sources and experts in their respective fields.


And may i add that evolution is different from abiogenesis and cosmogenesis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&list=PL85F1EE32A438AEB8&index=7&feature=plpp_video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&list=PL202A5088113EFC28&index=3&feature=plpp_video

davidylan:

this is ridiculously false. I dont agree with evolution so how can i claim it is empirical? It seems to me that you are just another empty cavern just posting without thinking. Look at your statement and ask yourself if it makes sense. My question has always been that you folks never provide empirical evidence for your belief in evolution. How does that square with the nonsense above?

Uyi Iredia:

Nonsense ! How can purpose arise from something that has no purpose; because it is clear that humans are purposeful. Purpose can only arise where there was a previous purpose because purpose itself is not a physical thing that can be tied to brains. Otherwise, the argument would be made that animals like lions and chimpanzees reminisce on the concept of purpose. Note that purpose is an abstract quality and it is simply stupid to say our genes gave us purpose especially when those genes are patently physical and not abstract as the concept of purpose. I generally find such explanations unacceptable because they are a subtle way of beggging the question of purpose seen in human existence. The ID argument best explains the presence of purpose.

Kay 17:

I'm so sorry, I meant to say NOT empirical.

Mr_Anony: Perhaps I should come in here,
First of all, I'd like to say that "evolution" is not my forte and I am quite ignorant on such matters. Perhaps someone would like to educate me and clear my confusion.
Please correct me where I am wrong and try to get the idea of what I am about as I may be mistaken as regards using the correct terms.

I am made to understand that evolution is a mindless random process where natural selection allows for the best adaptation to survive i.e. be passed on to the next generation.

So here is my question:
On a very basic level, I am made to understand that one of the characteristics of living things is that they respond to stimuli i.e. there is a stimulus and then the organism responds and adapts to it.
Evolution by natural selection to me contradicts this claim as it seems to imply that living things do not respond to stimuli, rather they throw up random events and the ones that per chance survive the stimuli become the way the organism adapts.

Can someone be so nice as to explain?

Ihedinobi: Davidylan, bro, I tell you, you just became my second favorite on this forum. I know I was never comfortable with abuse and insolence, I still am not. But I get you more now.
You made me laugh, dude. It's amazing how these guys insist that atheism = smart, while Christianity = d.aft then they end up proving incredibly d.aft themselves. Good thing you showed em up.

Kay 17:

ID doesn't explain why viruses flourish and mutate to be more deadly.

ID doesn't explain how organisms readapt to climate changes

ID doesn't explain the complexity of the Originator

ID doesn't explain general purpose of Life.

cyrexx:

do you know that statement can properly be inverted thus:

Logicboy, bro, i tell, you just became my second favourite on this forum. i was never comfortable with abuse and insolence, i still am not.
But i get you more now.
You made laugh, dude. its amazing how these guys insist that religion = sensible, while non-religious = fool, then they end up proving how incredibly senseless themselves. Good thing you showed them up

cyrexx:

do you know that statement can properly be inverted thus:

Logicboy, bro, i tell, you just became my second favourite on this forum. i was never comfortable with abuse and insolence, i still am not.
But i get you more now.
You made laugh, dude. its amazing how these guys insist that religion = sensible, while non-religious = fool, then they end up proving how incredibly senseless themselves. Good thing you showed them up

Ihedinobi: Davidylan, bro, I tell you, you just became my second favorite on this forum. I know I was never comfortable with abuse and insolence, I still am not. But I get you more now.
You made me laugh, dude. It's amazing how these guys insist that atheism = smart, while Christianity = d.aft then they end up proving incredibly d.aft themselves. Good thing you showed em up.

Ishilove:
Welcome to the club,son

I heard he is an Ekiti son... Nothing as fearful as a born-again Ekiti man

Ishilove:
Welcome to the club,son

I heard he is an Ekiti son... Nothing as fearful as a born-again Ekiti man

davidylan:

hehehehe i'm from ijebu oh my sister.

Ishilove:
Ijebu??

Its worse than i thought . 'Em Ijebu niggis are warriors

davidylan:

hehehehe i'm from ijebu oh my sister.

mkmyers45: Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?

mkmyers45: Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?