thehomer:

Having a PhD is no guarantee of expertise.

I agree. I MENTIONED THAT only because the toddler logicboy called him a quack. Point is, you may disagree with his opinions, but he ain't no quack. BEING of the creationist view and disagreeing with evolution does not render anyone quack. Much less a scientist of doctorate qualification, thanks.

thehomer:

There is no logic there because one of the things you're failing to see is that the environment changes.
In biology, success isn't determined by the population but by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to produce offspring. Having a large population of unfit individuals doesn't help the gene pool.
Based on what I've shown you that success is, do you still think only bacteria can be considered as being successful?

thehomer:

The point was to show that population isn't what is considered when one speaks of success in biology.

You outrightly LIE here. No need to descend to lies and blatant falsehoods.

The FACT is that BOTH population and continuous survival and reproduction are ABSOLUTELY INTEGRAL to stating that an organism is biologically successful.

That is the scientific position, so don't spew nonsense, kind sir.

And as far as that goes, unicellular organisms remain the most eminently successfull - - - So what impetus in terms of natural selection was there to evolve to LESS SUCCESSFUL MULTI-CELLULAR FORMS? ? ? ? ?

thehomer:

Having a PhD is no guarantee of expertise. After all, some Nobel Prize winners have been known to espouse some suspicious ideas.
The ideas that he expresses here don't appear to be what one knowledgeable about the theory of evolution would say unless of course they're creationists of some stripe or another.

Quite daft honestly. Having a PhD is no guarantee that you know everything under the sun, just that you have a mastery in one small scientific niche so no one is claiming broad knowledge here.

Secondly, it seems the atheist position (as always) is that anyone with an alternative viewpoint is necessarily ignorant.

thehomer:

In biology, success isn't determined by the population but by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to produce offspring. Having a large population of unfit individuals doesn't help the gene pool.

Again, I just have to laff at this nonsense.

The lengths to which you guys will go!

Are the zillions of unicellular life said to be the first life "unfit" in any way? ? ? ?

IF SO WHY HAVE THEY CONTINUED TO BE SO BIOLOGICALLY SUCCESSFUL - CONTINUOUSLY MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN MULTI-CELLULAR FORMS - FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS TILL DATE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Again, I just have to laff at this nonsense.

The lengths to which you guys will go!

Are the zillions of unicellular life said to be the first life "unfit" in any way? ? ? ?

IF SO WHY HAVE THEY CONTINUED TO BE SO BIOLOGICALLY SUCCESSFUL - CONTINUOUSLY MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN MULTI-CELLULAR FORMS - FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS TILL DATE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Did I say they were unfit? Do you even understand the question you asked? You were wondering why other species exist. That is one of the questions the theory of evolution answers via the mechanism of natural selection.

davidylan:

As is typical for most atheists... when boxed into a corner, they leave substance to chase shadows. The post you were responding to was quite clear - the fact that it is virtually impossible (if not downright crazy) to think that a system as complex as the human body is a product of random mutation and statistical chance. Do you agree or disagree and why (produce cogent facts pls).

The issue at stake here is NOT who the designer might be.

A human originally "evolves" from an egg and sperm in the mother's womb. Yet it is so hard to believe that we evolved from other life forms.

thehomer:

Did I say they were unfit? Do you even understand the question you asked? You were wondering why other species exist. That is one of the questions the theory of evolution answers via the mechanism of natural selection.

Will you stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the discerning.

The fact is that in response to that which I stated on the successful population of unicellular organisms, you stated that fitness and not population is what is key: thus inferring that there was an issue about fitness. What was this issue, please: otherwise WHY did you say that? ? ? ?

I am not wondering why other species exist: for the umpteenth time I am wondering how you reconcile natural selection to a scenario whereby more successful species evolve into less successful species.

Face the question like a man and stop dodging.

Deep Sight:

Will you stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the discerning.

If you're so discerning, then you should have already understood what I'm saying.

Deep Sight:
The fact is that in response to that which I stated on the successful population of unicellular organisms, you stated that fitness and not population is what is key: thus inferring that there was an issue about fitness. What was this issue, please: otherwise WHY did you say that? ? ? ?

You thought success is determined by population, I simply pointed out to you that success is determined by fitness which is the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce.

Deep Sight:
I am not wondering why other species exist: for the umpteenth time I am wondering how you reconcile natural selection to a scenario whereby more successful species evolve into less successful species.

You're making the same error here. Other species exist basically because of natural selection. You're assuming that multicellular organisms are less successful but the meaning of success you're using isn't biological.

Deep Sight:
Face the question like a man and stop dodging.

Please read and understand what I've said before you repeat the same question.

logicboy01:


A human originally "evolves" from an egg and sperm in the mother's womb. Yet it is so hard to believe that we evolved from other life forms.

That is a well-documented biological process NOT a result of random mutation. Seriously!

thehomer:

You thought success is determined by population, I simply pointed out to you that success is determined by fitness which is the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce.

O, so why then did you bring up the fitness issue - in contradistinction to my post on the success of unicellular organisms? Are unicellular organisms suffering from any challenges surviving and reproducing, or is it not the case that they in fact do this with phenomenal success? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You're making the same error here. Other species exist basically because of natural selection. You're assuming that multicellular organisms are less successful but the meaning of success you're using isn't biological.

For creep's sake, why the hell would unicellular organisms have begun to evolve to multicelllar organisms, given that with the principles of natural selection, unicellular organisms were already radically successful: more so than what they purpotedly evolved into? - for better survivability! ? ! ? !

Deep Sight:

O, so why the did you bring up the fitness issue? Are unicellular organisms suffering from any challenges surviving and reproducing, or is it not the case that they in fact do this with phenomenal success? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I brought it up because you're confusing fitness with population size.

Deep Sight:
For creep's sake, why the hell would unicellular organisms have begun to evolve to multicelllar organisms, given that with the principles of natural selection, unicellular organisms were already radically successful: more so than what they purpotedly evolved into? - for better survivability! ? ! ? !

Probably because they experienced certain pressures to do so. I've already talked about this and gave you examples of things like changes in the environment. You do know that the environment isn't static.

thehomer:

I brought it up because you're confusing fitness with population size.



Probably because they experienced certain pressures to do so. I've already talked about this and gave you examples of things like changes in the environment. You do know that the environment isn't static.

Nada. You haven't said anything, and you know it.

Deep Sight:

Nada. You haven't said anything, and you know it.

What baffles you about what I've said so far?

thehomer:

I brought it up because you're confusing fitness with population size.

In fact what arrant nonsense is this. Is it not fitness (surviving and reproducing) that leads to robust populations?

You really delight in absurdity.

Worse, you do not think.

Deep Sight:

In fact what arrant nonsense is this. Is it not fitness (surviving and reproducing) that leads to robust populations?

You really delight in absurdity.

Worse, you do not think.

Obviously, your deep ignorance blinds you when you come across concepts that you do not yet understand. Fitness can lead to a large population but a large population is not necessarily fit especially if there is a change in the environment. Do you know what an environment is and the importance of the role it plays?
For some reason, you're not properly reading what I'm writing.
Please try to engage your few brain cells. Don't worry, you're not likely to run out of them so soon at the rate you're going.

thehomer:

Obviously, your deep ignorance blinds you when you come across concepts that you do not yet understand. Fitness can DOES lead to a large population but a large population is not necessarily fit especially if there is a change in the environment. Do you know what an environment is and the importance of the role it plays?
For some reason, you're not properly reading what I'm writing.
Please try to engage your few brain cells. Don't worry, you're not likely to run out of them so soon at the rate you're going.

Abeg enjoy your abuses as a substitute for the trash that has been shown that you are saying.

Blatant goof. Fitness and population, and yet in the bolded you admit what was obvious to any toddler anyway. It probably flies over your head that when we speak of an evolving population, we are talking about what leads to its growth - which in this case is fitness as you defined it. Gosh.

You will probably fail to recognize that fitness refers to survivability ALREADY in a given environment with given pressures.

I won't waste my time on your ego tonite. Enjoy.

thehomer:

Obviously, your deep ignorance blinds you when you come across concepts that you do not yet understand. Fitness can lead to a large population but a large population is not necessarily fit especially[color=#990000][/color] if there is a change in the environment. Do you know what an environment is and the importance of the role it plays?
For some reason, you're not properly reading what I'm writing.
Please try to engage your few brain cells. Don't worry, you're not likely to run out of them so soon at the rate you're going.

Doesnt this fly in the face of the laws of natural selection? How does a "much less successful/fit" specie propagate itself so rapidly and efficiently?
I am assuming you mean that a sudden change in the environment could decimate a large population that fails to adapt to change... wouldnt that then suggest that largely successful unicellular organisms either did not experience any drastic change in the environment or were able to adapt very well to this change? If this is true, then WHAT is the driving force for the evolution of this successful organisms to complex multicellular animals with a less than optimum chance at survival in a changing environment?

thehomer:
Probably because they experienced certain pressures to do so. I've already talked about this and gave you examples of things like changes in the environment. You do know that the environment isn't static.

this makes no sense. If that is the case then why did some unicellular organisms fail to evolve despite these "certain pressures"?

Deep Sight:

Abeg enjoy your abuses as a substitute for the trash that has been shown that you are saying.

Blatant goof. Fitness and population, and yet in the bolded you admit what was obvious to any toddler anyway. It probably flies over your head that when we speak of an evolving population, we are talking about what leads to its growth - which in this case is fitness as you defined it. Gosh.

You must be on some medication because you're now modifying my posts without warning.
When speaking about an evolving population, we're considering its change.

Once again, you've decided to ignore the part the environment plays.

Deep Sight:
You will probably fail to recognize that fitness refers to survivability ALREADY in a given environment with given pressures.

I won't waste my time on your ego tonite. Enjoy.

I failed to realize this? When you're the one confusing populations size with fitness. Sheesh.
Please I'll be glad not to have my own time wasted. Just take the time to read up on these things.

davidylan:

Doesnt this fly in the face of the laws of natural selection? How does a "much less successful/fit" specie propagate itself so rapidly and efficiently?

Which species are you talking about?

davidylan:
I am assuming you mean that a sudden change in the environment could decimate a large population that fails to adapt to change... wouldnt that then suggest that largely successful unicellular organisms either did not experience any drastic change in the environment or were able to adapt very well to this change? If this is true, then WHAT is the driving force for the evolution of this successful organisms to complex multicellular animals with a less than optimum chance at survival in a changing environment?

You do realize that the environment available is large and variegated and that one of the ways of handling the change in the environment can involve this development of multicellular organism.
Why on earth do you think multicellular organisms have a less than optimum chance at survival in a changing environment? Multicellular organisms with their complex organs/organelles have some abilities that the unicellular ones lack. They're able to adapt in ways unicellular organisms cannot.

thehomer:

You must be on some medication because you're now modifying my posts without warning.
When speaking about an evolving population, we're considering its change.

Once again, you've decided to ignore the part the environment plays.

No one has ignored that part, it just seems that you use the environment as an excuse to justify the uncomfortable aspects of your own argument.

Ok lets assume the environment was responsible for driving the evolution of largely successful unicellular organisms to less successful and complex multicellular organisms...

1. This would hinge on the assumption that these factors favored multicellular organisms more than unicellular organisms...

2. In that case then why did some unicellular organisms refuse to evolve?

3. If we assume those that refused to evolve did so by merely adapting to the changing environment (for example drug resistant bacteria) then why wasnt this the predominant choice rather than evolution to multicellular organisms which is a much more energy intensive and least effective option?

thehomer:
You do realize that the environment available is large and variegated and that one of the ways of handling the change in the environment can involve this development of multicellular organism.
Why on earth do you think multicellular organisms have a less than optimum chance at survival in a changing environment? Multicellular organisms with their complex organs/organelles have some abilities that the unicellular ones lack. They're able to adapt in ways unicellular organisms cannot.

this makes no sense. why are these unicellular organisms still with us today?

davidylan:

No one has ignored that part, it just seems that you use the environment as an excuse to justify the uncomfortable aspects of your own argument.

It is a fact that the environment has a large influence on evolution.

davidylan:
Ok lets assume the environment was responsible for driving the evolution of largely successful unicellular organisms to less successful and complex multicellular organisms...

How are the multicellular organisms less successful?

davidylan:
1. This would hinge on the assumption that these factors favored multicellular organisms more than unicellular organisms...

Not necessarily so. A certain niche may be filled by different species you know.

davidylan:
2. In that case then why did some unicellular organisms refuse to evolve?

Who says they didn't evolve? The fact that there are unicellular organisms now doesn't mean they're the same as the ones that were here in the distant past.

davidylan:
3. If we assume those that refused to evolve did so by merely adapting to the changing environment (for example drug resistant bacteria) then why wasnt this the predominant choice rather than evolution to multicellular organisms which is a much more energy intensive and least effective option?

That assumption is flawed because it isn't the case that the organisms present now are the same as the ones present in the distant past.
How are multicellular organisms the less effective option?

davidylan:

this makes no sense. why are these unicellular organisms still with us today?

Why shouldn't they still be with us today?

So much testesterone on this thread...

Is it just me, or do you men ENJOY arguing?

Evolutionists are just blatantly mad people.........

ÍmagiÑe Àll of em trÝing to provÉ organisms ,both unicellular and multi-cellular all Çame by chance.....

Crazy indeed....

@deep sight and davidlyn.....

Good job my bro's.....

ijawkid: Evolutionists are just blatantly mad people.........

ÍmagiÑe Àll of em trÝing to provÉ organisms ,both unicellular and multi-cellular all Çame by chance.....

Crazy indeed....

@deep sight and davidlyn.....

Good job my bro's.....

Yes, biologists are mad. Yes. But a Nigerian who follows a religion that enslaved his forefathers and believes in talking snakes and women created from ribs is not mad

davidylan:

That is a well-documented biological process NOT a result of random mutation. Seriously!

It is not only documented, the process is ongoing and is the only means of human procreation.

Am still waiting to see or hear of an apes that is about to turn to a human being.

Freksy:

It is not only documented, the process is ongoing and is the only means of human procreation.

Am still waiting to see or hear of an apes that is about to turn to a human being.

You know, honestly, it reminds me of nollywood movies where plants and animals turn into men through voodoo. Funnily enough, these same atheists will laugh at such things as superstitions: and yet they believe that with sufficient time, exactly the same such things can occur in nature - unguided.

There's a book called Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I read it about a year ago. It's a very good book. I recommend the book to all posters here. It's good to debate these issues after familiarizing oneself with the evidence and the actual claims of the theory.

I don't have any interest in joining the debate, but I should mention that evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with religion at all - it's just inconsistent with certain religions that make specific claims that seem factually untrue.

PhysicsQED: There's a book called Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I read it about a year ago. It's a very good book. I recommend the book to all posters here. It's good to debate these issues after familiarizing oneself with the evidence and the actual claims of the theory.

I don't have any interest in joining the debate, but I should mention that evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with religion at all - it's just inconsistent with certain religions that make specific claims that seem factually untrue.

I entirely agree with this. I should repeat, for the sake of clarity, that I accept the theory of evolution. I just do not believe that natural selection alone is at play: especially with regard to the development of knowing sentient beings.

There's da[i]m[/i]n something more to the whole thing.

thehomer:

Are you sure that this it is the theory of evolution that you're addressing here?

Yes.

thehomer: There is more to it than that but they're often enough to address most of the questions creationists like you often raise.

They aren't.

thehomer: I've told you previously that it isn't what the theory is supposed to address.

I reply once again that it does address this. Google Jack Szostak and read his papers.

thehomer: I hope you know that scientists are actually working on this rather than sitting around pontificating.

They pontificate nonsense. That's the problem.

thehomer: Before you go too far, what problems did the laws of heredity cause for the process of natural selection?
You're yet to actually present the reputable articles supporting intelligent design.
Intelligent design will be considered when its proponents have some actual evidence to present.

You won't read them if I do. However read this

Uyi Iredia:

Yes.

Where does the theory talk about natural process in vacuo giving rise to advanced lifeforms?

Uyi Iredia:
They aren't.

Can you please expatiate?

Uyi Iredia:
I reply once again that it does address this. Google Jack Szostak and read his papers.

Which particular paper are you referring to? And make sure you've actually read the paper yourself.

Uyi Iredia:
They pontificate nonsense. That's the problem.

How do you know that what they're saying is nonsense?

Uyi Iredia:
You won't read them if I do. However read this

What am I supposed to get from the article? And have you read it?
You've also not pointed out the problems that the laws of heredity pose for the natural selection.