shadeyinka:

Is the design not successful for those Species? How come they haven't gone EXTINCT and some other "so called better efficiently designed species" have gone extinct?

All animals are EXPENDABLE!

That's not my point, why will a designer design animals that will mate and die?

Imagine yourself as a designer, will you create a thing that when they have sex they die or give birth they die?

tintingz:
That's not my point, why will a designer design animals that will mate and die?

Imagine yourself as a designer, will you create a thing that when they have sex they die or give birth they die?

God can do whatever it likes. You are not supposed to question it

hahn:


God can do whatever it likes. You are not supposed to question it

Yeah. Even unreasonable things.

aadoiza:

Atheists seem to be the No 1 peddlers of the evolution nonsense, and they never present any concrete proofs for it.

I hope you are aware that even if you manage to disprove evolution today, it does not in anyway demonstrate that atheism is faulty?

tintingz:


Yeah. Even unreasonable things.

Does god do anything reasonable to start with?

The guy ya werey gan

shadeyinka:
I was just wondering how the Porcupine happened to EVOLVE it's sharp quills. And how the Bat happened to grow its wings.

The story probably goes like this:
In the rat family, there was commotion as snakes, dogs, hyaenas, cats and all the small carnivores began to feast on them.

So, they had a meeting and the vote was should they evolve into a Bird by turning their silky hairs to feathers OR turn the silky hairs into weapons of mass stabbing.

The argument raged on for a long time and only the porcupine tribe of rat decided to evolve their hairs into spears. The Ratonia tribe of rats decided to maintain status-quo while the Batilia tribe decided to grow wings and become birdlike.

According to the law of selection: by now, the Ratonia family should be extinct but they are not.

Scientific effort is still on to see how such feat was made possible. I would want to use the same means to evolve myself into Obama or Trump.

Any good idea will do. Thanks

Lol

tintingz:
That's not my point, why will a designer design animals that will mate and die?

Imagine yourself as a designer, will you create a thing that when they have sex they die or give birth they die?

And they successfully passed down their genes down till the year 2020?

Do you know that your spermatozoa alone out of almost 300million sperms died on the way to fertilize the egg that formed you?

Okay! You believe it was EVOLUTION?
If it was evolution, shouldn't such animals like the praying mantis disappear from the surface of the earth?
Ask yourself: from the theory of evolution is that an efficient means of passing down the genetic information?

Tamaratonye1:

I hope you are aware that even if you manage to disprove evolution today, it does not in anyway demonstrate that atheism is faulty?

Of course it doesn't. I just don't get why atheists are so hellbent on supplanting creation with a silly theory. Even if they're gonna kill creation they, at least, should demonstrate a considerable level of ingeniosusness doing so and come up with a more credible and laudable theory, not this cringeworthy guff.

LordReed:


Did you read this:

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

Are these not "peddlers"?

I must have missed it while rushing through the article. I'm sure there are more atheists doing it than Christians, as there are more Christians preaching spiritualism than spiritual atheists. And that is coming from my interactions with many people on different platforms.

tintingz:
That's not my point, why will a designer design animals that will mate and die?

Imagine yourself as a designer, will you create a thing that when they have sex they die or give birth they die?

Shey you never hear say variety is the spice of life ni? If the designer make all of us the same, people like go say he's uncreative.

aadoiza:

Of course it doesn't. I just don't get why atheists are so hellbent on supplanting creation with a silly theory. Even if they're gonna kill creation they, at least, should demonstrate a considerable level of ingeniosusness doing so and come up with a more credible and laudable theory, not this cringeworthy guff.

If life on the planet did not occur naturally, then where did it come from?

What evidence do you have that magical flying sky beings are real and then capable of creating a universe?

Tamaratonye1:

I hope you are aware that even if you manage to disprove evolution today, it does not in anyway demonstrate that atheism is faulty?

What's your EVIDENCE?

Tamaratonye1:

If life on the planet did not occur naturally, then where did it come from?

What evidence do you have that magical flying sky beings are real and then capable of creating a universe?

Things don't just spring into existence from nowhere. But if you believe otherwise, you could show me what you have witnessed magically come into existence on earth.

I don't know of the 'magical flying beings' you speak of, but do believe the One that created our world is Lord over all 'magical flying beings' and us. And as for the evidence, the best we've hot is the scriptures, which I presume will not be enough for a sceptical materialist.

Suppose I were, I definitely won't, to take the trouble to lead to people who would open your eyes to realities beyond your wildest dreams, they still could not show you, if you retained your sanity, the Creator. No matter your efforts you will never see the Creator in this world.

budaatum:

There's a fallacy for this. The making up of outlandish assumptions then asking others for their defense.

Where did you get your "evolution of the rodent family into bats" from if you did not just make it up?

https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-rodents

Hi Buda,
Long time


Oh sorry for the use of the phrase "rodent family": I should have looked for a better name but I am no biologist. You know this occured almost 600million years ago and the parent rodents we had then are very different from the modern rodent such as rats.

Both the order Chiroptera and the order Rodentia are very modern and they evolved from the parent rodent stock.

LoL!

So many things can be hidden under this theory. It's the equivalent of the "God of the gaps"!
Hope you are clear now.

If you know the proper biological name, state it and I'll make the corrections. Thanks

shadeyinka:

Hi Buda,
Long time


Oh sorry for the use of the phrase "rodent family": I should have looked for a better name but I am no biologist. You know this occured almost 600million years ago and the parent rodents we had then are very different from the modern rodent such as rats.

Both the order Chiroptera and the order Rodentia are very modern and they evolved from the parent rodent stock.

LoL!

So many things can be hidden under this theory. It's the equivalent of the "God of the gaps"!
Hope you are clear now.

If you know the proper biological name, state it and I'll make the corrections. Thanks

C'mon...

aadoiza:

Atheists seem to be the No 1 peddlers of the evolution nonsense, and they never present any concrete proofs for it.

Actually, scientists, as in those who use their senses, are "the No 1 peddlers of evolution", and if you trully read your Bible starting at Genesis and working your way to the end instead of the a la carte reading most do in church, you'd see YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ.

shadeyinka:

Hi Buda,
Long time


Oh sorry for the use of the phrase "rodent family": I should have looked for a better name but I am no biologist. You know this occured almost 600million years ago and the parent rodents we had then are very different from the modern rodent such as rats.

Both the order Chiroptera and the order Rodentia are very modern and they evolved from the parent rodent stock.

LoL!

So many things can be hidden under this theory. It's the equivalent of the "God of the gaps"!
Hope you are clear now.

If you know the proper biological name, state it and I'll make the corrections. Thanks

No, you are no biologist, and you probably aren't a scientist neither, and instead of learning so you evolve, you refuse to be reborn, showing why it is said that it is easier for a camel to enter through the needle's eye.

budaatum:

No, you are no biologist, and you probably aren't a scientist neither, and instead of learning so you evolve, you refuse to be reborn, showing why it is said that it is easier for a camel to enter through the needle's eye.

Stop whining!
Why complain over things you knew happened over 600million years ago.
We're you there?
What scientific evidence do you have?

BTW, Jesus said that:

Mat 19:23-24:
"Then said Jesus to his disciples, Truly I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

When you think you know all and have it all, your salvation is impossible!

shadeyinka:

Stop whining!
Why complain over things you knew happened over 600million years ago.
We're you there?
What scientific evidence do you have?

BTW, Jesus said that:

Mat 19:23-24:
"Then said Jesus to his disciples, Truly I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

When you think you know all and have it all, your salvation is impossible!

First, I'm not the one whinning. You opened the thread.

Evolution is not a "over 600 million years ago happening thing". And the rich man was poor in knowledge, is precisely Jesus' point. He would not have healed sight if he did not want you to have knowledge gained by the use of the senses.

budaatum:

First, I'm not the one whinning. You opened the thread.

Evolution is not a "over 600 million years ago happening thing". And the rich man was poor in knowledge, is precisely Jesus' point. He would not have healed sight if he did not want you to have knowledge gained by the use of the senses.

Ordinary comprehension of English language. Check your first sentence.

The rich man's cup is already full. He has everything he thinks he needed.

shadeyinka:

Ordinary comprehension of English language. Check your first sentence.

The rich man's cup is already full. He has everything he thinks he needed.

His cup is full of everything "he thinks" he needs, and not "full of everything he needs".

He ignorantly stores wealth that moths eat or the rain come down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against his house, and it falls with a great crash.

shadeyinka:

And they successfully passed down their genes down till the year 2020?

Do you know that your spermatozoa alone out of almost 300million sperms died on the way to fertilize the egg that formed you?

Okay! You believe it was EVOLUTION?
If it was evolution, shouldn't such animals like the praying mantis disappear from the surface of the earth?
Ask yourself: from the theory of evolution is that an efficient means of passing down the genetic information?

They pass down their genetic but die after that, nature doesn't favour them when it comes to long term mating like other specie. My own argument is not about evolution, my argument is when you mentioned a design.

hahn:


Does god do anything reasonable to start with?

The guy ya werey gan

Lol.

aadoiza:

Shey you never hear say variety is the spice of life ni? If the designer make all of us the same, people like go say he's uncreative.

What's creative when you design something that when they f*ck it's their death sentence? What purpose is that for?

aadoiza:

I must have missed it while rushing through the article. I'm sure there are more atheists doing it than Christians, as there are more Christians preaching spiritualism than spiritual atheists. And that is coming from my interactions with many people on different platforms.

So the idea that evolution is an atheist propaganda is hogwash. There is nothing atheist about evolution, it is bare faced fact.

shadeyinka:

The initial question was:

The point I'm making is this:
If an animals existence is not threatened in anyway, would it still evolve?

You said:

Then I said:


Now, your answer is:


Check the bolded.
Threats are pressures aren't they?
Doesn't this contradict your initial position?

No it does not because the point is threat is not the only thing that makes organisms evolve.

Your tetrapod example is like saying human beings evolved from pigmies, to negroids, then to mongoloids and then to Caucasians is there a conclusive genetic mapping to say Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, and Nectridea are related in anyway to any modern tetrapod.

It's just a speculation isn't it?

Check the italics: yes gills in early fish but not lungs.

Why do you keep making these kinds of irrelevant comparisons? BTW those terms negroid and the like are not used any more you really should update your sources.

For evidence check here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=21236972

You asked for what kinds means and I gave you with examples.

The Specie: Dog's binomial nomenclature is Canis Familiaris and this include all Dogs. The Specie of dog has BREEDs: the breeds are the KINDS.

Breed is a scientific word isn't it?

What is it's relevance to this discussion?

So, with the bones of the early tetrapods, how are you sure they can interbreed?

For the transformation of tadpoles into frogs, is it not already written in their DNA?

What has interbreeding got to do with it? I already pointed out ability to interbreed is one of the criteria for denoting species. What has that got to do with this?

You've just said something like: it's not written in the DNA but somehow selection made it evolve. Is this not a contradiction?

Selection pressures allowed the ability to become multicellular to come to the fore. Traits do not have to be in DNA before selection pressures starts to work

It must be written in the DNA for it to be passed along during reproduction. Cutting my limbs do not affect my DNA, so all my offsprings must have what is written in my DNA!

That is after they are in the the DNA. DNA does not contain everything that will ever be, it gets changed to express traits as time progresses.

Fossils are NO evidence of evolution!


The @bolded is completely untrue.

The Mammoth is less than 400,000 years ago in frozen state yet only fragments of their DNA have been recovered intact. Compare with the similarity between the human DNA and a Pig: it's close enough to not accept anything other than complete DNA.

So evidence by DNA is false.
Of course, fossils are no evidence.

Go tell the Academy of Sciences that, don't argue it with me, go convince the scientists of that.

tintingz:


They pass down their genetic but die after that, nature doesn't favour them when it comes to long term mating like other specie. My own argument is not about evolution, my argument is when you mentioned a design.

You are the one who is making that conclusion. If they have apparently survived millions of years and they are not extinct; It is a good design!

A bad design is one that either does not do not incapable of doing what it is intended (designed) to do.

Can biological cells divide indefinitely? Theoretically yes, but practically no. That's why aging take place and before the aged dies, there is reproduction and new cells take over. The cycle of life had been part of the design.

Let me give you a good example of design:
Remember the Apollo Mission?
The Saturn V rocket has three stages. The first stage shot the rocket up about 42 miles (68 kilometers) and the second stage carried the rocket even closer to orbit. The third stage placed the Apollo spacecraft into Earth orbit and pushed it toward the moon.

Each of the rockets powering each stages are dropped at the end of their function. By the time the rocket get to the moon, it is less than 20% of the investment of what it started with. At the end of the mission, about 10% of the total mass sent to space returns back to earth with mission accomplished.

Do you think this is a BAD design?

shadeyinka:


If it was evolution, shouldn't such animals like the praying mantis disappear from the surface of the earth?

This just shows how little your knowledge of evolution is, and instead of learning about it you cover your eyes so you cannot see!

www.nairaland.com/attachments/9603990_ubznnd_jpegff60185854e0e516d08863f4bfdae383

aadoiza:

I don't know of the 'magical flying beings' you speak of, but do believe the One that created our world is Lord over all 'magical flying beings' and us.

"One that created"? How do you know our world was created? I'd like to know how our world was created by any cosmic overlord. Perhaps, you can demonstrate this?

aadoiza:

Suppose I were, I definitely won't, to take the trouble to lead to people who would open your eyes to realities beyond your wildest dreams, they still could not show you, if you retained your sanity, the Creator. No matter your efforts you will never see the Creator in this world.

Ok. But you have some magical abilities that lets you communicate with this so called "Creator". Some of your type even claim to know what it likes and dislikes, and how it acts etc.

Oga just say you don't have any objective evidence for claims. I will not beat you lol

LordReed:

No it does not because the point is threat is not the only thing that makes organisms evolve.

Are you insinuating that all species are evolving aimlessly in no particular direction?
This your theory goes against what Darwin will call survival of the fittest. I wish you can find a link to support your claim that organisms do not need any external factors to evolve.

LordReed:

Why do you keep making these kinds of irrelevant comparisons? BTW those terms negroid and the like are not used any more you really should update your sources.

For evidence check here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=21236972

You very well understand what I'm saying. If without the knowledge of hindsight, all we have are skeletons of the Black Race, the Caucasian, the Abogerin, the Asian (Chinese) races alone. Would we not have concluded they they probably evolved from one to another? That's the point. Skeletons/Fossil's lead no where?

LordReed:

What is it's relevance to this discussion?
What has interbreeding got to do with it? I already pointed out ability to interbreed is one of the criteria for denoting species. What has that got to do with this?

The initial question from me was:
Changes in kinds are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

You replied with:

Kinds is not a scientific term so maybe rephrase?


You asked for what the term kinds means and I gave you with examples. And also showed you that kinds is equivalent to breeds .

LordReed:

Selection pressures allowed the ability to become multicellular to come to the fore. Traits do not have to be in DNA before selection pressures starts to work

You used the term selection pressures. Don't you think it contradicts the fact that threats/pressures may not be needed for evolution to take place?

LordReed:

That is after they are in the the DNA. DNA does not contain everything that will ever be, it gets changed to express traits as time progresses.

Go tell the Academy of Sciences that, don't argue it with me, go convince the scientists of that.

When mutations happen to DNA, do they result into benefiting properties in the specie?
Eg. Do you think a specie could have a superior property when you irradiate it's sperm/egg to nuclear radiation?
When a person has XXY gene, instead of XX or XY, does it give a superior property to the specie?

How then will you just assume that changes in the DNA will gravitate into producing offspring of higher virility?

About the Academy of Science: they are not infallible and some of us dare think differently!

shadeyinka:

You are the one who is making that conclusion. If they have apparently survived millions of years and they are not extinct; It is a good design!

A bad design is one that either does not do not incapable of doing what it is intended (designed) to do.

Can biological cells divide indefinitely? Theoretically yes, but practically no. That's why aging take place and before the aged dies, there is reproduction and new cells take over. The cycle of life had been part of the design.

Let me give you a good example of design:
Remember the Apollo Mission?
The Saturn V rocket has three stages. The first stage shot the rocket up about 42 miles (68 kilometers) and the second stage carried the rocket even closer to orbit. The third stage placed the Apollo spacecraft into Earth orbit and pushed it toward the moon.

Each of the rockets powering each stages are dropped at the end of their function. By the time the rocket get to the moon, it is less than 20% of the investment of what it started with. At the end of the mission, about 10% of the total mass sent to space returns back to earth with mission accomplished.

Do you think this is a BAD design?

You're still not getting the point.

The point is not passing their genes, octopus do lay many eggs, the point is the mating process. An octopus will have one night stand and they die shortly after that while other specie don't.

If there's a designer that's intelligent, what intelligence or purpose is behind this?

This make sense in a naturalism point of view, but I've not seen any sense in the theists view that claim everything has a purpose.

budaatum:

This just shows how little your knowledge of evolution is, and instead of learning about it you cover your eyes so you cannot see!

www.nairaland.com/attachments/9603990_ubznnd_jpegff60185854e0e516d08863f4bfdae383

Buda, you are much more than this. I didn't say humans came from monkeys neither did I insinuate that. And my argument wasn't about the evolution of the praying mantis.

Here was what you quoted:
If it was evolution, shouldn't such animals like the praying mantis disappear from the surface of the earth?

The argument wasn't about the evolution of the praying mantis. The argument (with tintingz) was about efficient or inefficient design because the male praying mantis (or chameleon) gets eaten up by the female during copulation.

My argument was that the design has fulfilled it's purpose if the praying mantis has not gone out of extinction even in 2020 because of what we consider as a strange reproductive method. Any design that fulfils it's purpose is successful!