asyncritus' question time

asyncritus arguments against evolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: asyncritus' question time

#241  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:30 pm

asyncritus wrote:Eshuis

Do forgive me for ignoring your future posts unless and until you respond to my demands.

Your demands are irrelevant, this is not your personal forum nor thread, furthermore since you have ignored my questions and challenges to you, you hardly have the right to make any demands of me. :naughty:

asyncritus wrote:You are tedious, boring, repetitive, and pedantic..

Look into the mirror. :coffee:

asyncritus wrote:So please carry on with my assurance that I shall not reply unless and until you answer the handful of points mentioned above.

You actually believe this will hide your utter failure to address my questions or the fact that I and others have thoroughly destroyed your arguments by showing how illogical and flawed they are?
It won't.

asyncritus wrote:Happy Christmas.

Do keep the box on your head, it provides for rather a lot of comedy posts. :whistle:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Apr 30, 2012 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13608
Age: 24
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#242  Postby Oldskeptic » Apr 30, 2012 7:37 pm

Asyncritus wrote:
That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere. So


The cliff swallows don't nest at the Mission in Capistrano any longer because the environment changed.

They didn't arrive precisely the same date every year nor leave Argentina on precisely the same date every year.

There are large populations of cliff swallows in lower South America that migrate back and forth, to and from the US south west.

The cliff swallow nests wherever the environment is right. They are all over the place. On cliffs, under bridges, and yes, until the environment changed, under the eves at the mission in Capistrano.

They follow a north/south migratory path that is determined by change of seasons and environment.

Only a certain number of birds can nest at any one place so they spread out. If a good place to nest is filled up they move on.

Cliff swallows use preexisting nests if they can find them, explaining why cliff swallows used the mission at Capistrano, but there is no evidence or reason to believe that they use the same nest year after year, or the same nesting site.

Also Pacific golden plovers are wide spread across the far north of north America and Asia in summer and winters all over the fucking place, from south Asia to California. They go north in summer and south in winter.

So, you have misrepresented to species of migratory birds that you seem to no fuck all about, what's next? Oh yeah eels.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4109
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#243  Postby Rumraket » Apr 30, 2012 8:12 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Asyncritus wrote:
That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere. So


The cliff swallows don't nest at the Mission in Capistrano any longer because the environment changed.

They didn't arrive precisely the same date every year nor leave Argentina on precisely the same date every year.

There are large populations of cliff swallows in lower South America that migrate back and forth, to and from the US south west.

The cliff swallow nests wherever the environment is right. They are all over the place. On cliffs, under bridges, and yes, until the environment changed, under the eves at the mission in Capistrano.

They follow a north/south migratory path that is determined by change of seasons and environment.

Only a certain number of birds can nest at any one place so they spread out. If a good place to nest is filled up they move on.

Cliff swallows use preexisting nests if they can find them, explaining why cliff swallows used the mission at Capistrano, but there is no evidence or reason to believe that they use the same nest year after year, or the same nesting site.

Also Pacific golden plovers are wide spread across the far north of north America and Asia in summer and winters all over the fucking place, from south Asia to California. They go north in summer and south in winter.

So, you have misrepresented to species of migratory birds that you seem to no fuck all about, what's next? Oh yeah eels.

Well isn't that convenient. A little lying for jesus never hurt anyone, right? If your case is bullshit anyway, that's probably also best if you wan't convince anyone over. The end justifies the means and all that. Next up: crusades and the inquisition.
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9179
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#244  Postby Oldskeptic » Apr 30, 2012 11:24 pm

As for European eels I find it interesting that the adults tend to follow the Canary current south from Europe because they come out close to shore, get picked by the equatorial current and deposited in the gyre called the Sargasso Sea. Then some of the larvae get picked up by the gulf stream current going north and then this current runs into the north Atlantic current and that runs straight into Europe.

Ever thought that these eels don't know where the fuck they're going? Some end up in the ocean and are swept to a place where breeding environment's right. Some of the larvae get swept up in the northern bound current and end up back where their parents came from. Some swim up rivers to fresh water lakes where there aren'y nearly as many predators, and the rest get eaten.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4109
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#245  Postby hackenslash » Apr 30, 2012 11:41 pm

asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower, I congratulate you on your attempted explanation, which I here acknowledge, and wiil shortly debunk.

In the meantime, until I manage to get round to that, here is the tale of the Eels. Let's have a few more insults instead of explanations. Let me spare you the bother: 'OHH_MMMMMMM mutations and natural selection; Gish Galloping; the answer has already been given; I am ignoring the given answers. Forgive me if I've missed a few, but you get the idea.' Now we've got past all that, can we have a scientific discussion?

The eels (Anguilla spp) grow to maturity in European fresh water bodies, like lakes, reservoirs and such like. So far, so good.

At sexual maturity, they make their way into the rivers, and swim down to the sea, where they should die in the salt water. They don't, and one wonders how this astonishing feature evoived. But let that pass.

THEY THEN SWIM DOWN THE WEST COAST OF EUROPE, DOWN THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA, PIGGY-BACKING ON THE CURRENTS FLOWING SOUTH, THEN THEY BRANCH OFF INTO THE SARGASSO SEA.

Note, they have never made this trip before, and will never make it again. So the navigation instinct is in full swing. Origins anybody?

They swim at depths of 3000 feet in the day, and come up to 250 feet at night. They cannot be navigating by the sun, stars or any light source, since it is entirely dark at those depths.

IN THE SARGASSO, THEY SPAWN, AND ALL THE ADULTS DIE. NONE EVER RETURNS TO THE HOME WATERS.

The young, called glass eels, then swim all the way back to the European waters WITH NO GUIDES (being in that respect very much like the Pacific Golden Plover young). 3000 miles away, underwater at that.

They then return to the European freshwater, where they remain for some years until sexual maturity and then they repeat the journey their parents made, but which they have never seen themselves.

I wonder just how many mutations and natural selections it took to evolve that lot.

But you can tell me, I'm sure.


Have you never found your way back from the shops? If any of your direct ancestors had had life-threatening trouble finding their way back from the shops, do you think you'd be alive now?
Dogma is the death of the intellect
There is no more thunderous prescient of doom than the flutter of tiny wings...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 17086
Age: 45
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#246  Postby MrFungus420 » Apr 30, 2012 11:57 pm

asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
mindhack wrote:
It does indicate just how old the earth and everything around us is. Amazing really. :)

The exact quantity of mutations is irrelevant to the question of how they know where to swim.

Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?


That you don't understand evolution in any way.

And your use of this quote, as if it supports you at all, demonstrates that fact.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#247  Postby MrFungus420 » May 01, 2012 12:00 am

asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower. I owe you a debunking, and here it is.

****SNIP painfully stupid post***

So consider your explanation debunked.


Not even close.

You are still just resorting to a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#248  Postby Brunitski » May 01, 2012 1:57 am

asyncritus wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Why don't you answer what you have already been asked instead of bringing up yet something else you don't understand?


With reference to the eels, Onyx, if I were an evolutionist, your comment would be fully justified = I wouldn't have a clue as to how this behaviour could possibly have evolved.

But I do know. They were created that way.


Oh Really.

By Whom, did you say?
User avatar
Brunitski
 
Posts: 184

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#249  Postby asyncritus » May 01, 2012 11:15 am

Oldskeptic wrote:
That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere. So

The cliff swallows don't nest at the Mission in Capistrano any longer because the environment changed.


You do admit that they arrive in Capistrano every year, I trust.

The miracle of the "Swallows" of Capistrano takes place each year at the Mission San Juan Capistano, on March 19th, St. Joseph's Day.
http://www.sanjuancapistrano.net/swallows/

So why don't you shove that down your earhole and see where it lands?


They didn't arrive precisely the same date every year nor leave Argentina on precisely the same date every year.


Perhaps headwinds etc may slow them down. But they do arrive, and have done so for the longest time. The tourists, of course, have driven them off. So nuts to your stupid point.

There are large populations of cliff swallows in lower South America that migrate back and forth, to and from the US south west.


Great. So what?

The cliff swallow nests wherever the environment is right. They are all over the place. On cliffs, under bridges, and yes, until the environment changed, under the eves at the mission in Capistrano.


Oh, so they do come to Capistrano. I never mentioned the word Mission. You did. And 'eaves' is the word you're looking for.

They follow a north/south migratory path that is determined by change of seasons and environment.


Don't talk such nonsense.

Only a certain number of birds can nest at any one place so they spread out. If a good place to nest is filled up they move on.


Well, I never. You sure about this profound biological fact?


Cliff swallows use preexisting nests if they can find them, explaining why cliff swallows used the mission at Capistrano, but there is no evidence or reason to believe that they use the same nest year after year, or the same nesting site.


Just in case you have trouble reading what I wrote: I said that they arrive on the 18th March every year (that article said the 19th) from Goya in Argentina. I made no comment about their nesting habits.

But I missed your explanation of how they a. find the place 7,800 miles away, and b. how they get the dates right. You were going to say? Yeah, Shtummmmm.

So effectively you support the fact that they come every year, and leave every year. That right? So how does your magical theory explain those facts? Oh, I know. 'OOHHHH_MMMMM mutations and natural selection'!!! That right?


Also Pacific golden plovers are wide spread across the far north of north America and Asia in summer and winters all over the fucking place, from south Asia to California. They go north in summer and south in winter.


Your ignorance screams loudly.

You did know, didn't you, that there are more than one species of golden plover? The Pacific (Pluvialis fulva which I was talking about), and the American (Pluvialis dominica), which is the one you're probably exhibiting your ignorance about.

The Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva), known as the Kolea in Hawaiian, is the most common of Hawai'i's migrant shorebirds, with birds wintering in large numbers in almost all types of available habitat, from coastal pastures and wetlands, to parks and gardens, to the high altitude slopes of Haleakala Crater. Most adult birds return from their Arctic nesting grounds in late July and August, with juveniles following in late September. Most birds then leave by early May, although a few remain throughout the summer. Those birds that decide to stay in Hawai'i throughout the summer months are usually first-year birds. Pacific Golden Plovers do not nest in Hawai'i.
http://www.birdinghawaii.co.uk/XPGPlover2.htm

So, you have misrepresented to species of migratory birds that you seem to no fuck all about, what's next? Oh yeah eels.


I'm happy that you have so correctly represented your ignorance for all to see. Well done.
Last edited by asyncritus on May 01, 2012 11:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#250  Postby Shrunk » May 01, 2012 11:17 am

As opposed to your ignorance of the quote function.

So I guess we can add "tourists" to "iron chariots" and others on the list of things God cannot overcome....
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 18790
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#251  Postby asyncritus » May 01, 2012 11:29 am

Brunitski wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Why don't you answer what you have already been asked instead of bringing up yet something else you don't understand?


With reference to the eels, Onyx, if I were an evolutionist, your comment would be fully justified = I wouldn't have a clue as to how this behaviour could possibly have evolved.

But I do know. They were created that way.


Oh Really.

By Whom, did you say?


God, of course.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#252  Postby Tero » May 01, 2012 11:34 am

I don't have time to read the whole silly thread but here is some text on the Capistrano swallows
http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/03/28/w ... trano-not/
enjoy
User avatar
Tero
 
Posts: 647

Country: USA
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#253  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 11:42 am

asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower, I congratulate you on your attempted explanation, which I here acknowledge, and wiil shortly debunk.


Oh dear.

You think you can debunk a scientific theory that's been firmly established by tens of thousands of independent scientists who actually have a fucking clue what they're talking about?

Did you collect your Nobel already, Asyncritus, or are we the lucky 'first recipients' of this novel research you've conducted?


asyncritus wrote:In the meantime, until I manage to get round to that,


I shan't be holding my breath! :)


asyncritus wrote: here is the tale of the Eels.


Translation: I shall now move onto the next item in my Gish Gallop.

Unsurprisingly, Asyncritus - it was me who brought up eels with you back at RDF.... considering I helped educate you about magnetoception via the example of the eel, I have a terrible feeling that you're about to embarrass yourself publicly again by having totally forgotten that, and now regurgitating the same ludicrously inept treatment you tried to hashed together last time.

Or have you actually done some independent research since then (i.e. not gone begging to AiG for a rebuttal)?

I await with bated breath...


asyncritus wrote:Let's have a few more insults instead of explanations. Let me spare you the bother: 'OHH_MMMMMMM mutations and natural selection; Gish Galloping; the answer has already been given; I am ignoring the given answers. Forgive me if I've missed a few, but you get the idea.' Now we've got past all that, can we have a scientific discussion?


So you get to play the cocky twat, but I have to play nice?

:)


asyncritus wrote:The eels (Anguilla spp) grow to maturity in European fresh water bodies, like lakes, reservoirs and such like. So far, so good.

At sexual maturity, they make their way into the rivers, and swim down to the sea, where they should die in the salt water.


They should die, but they don't.

Sorry, can you run that past me again, only my bullshit detector is going off. Oh sorry, was that not scholarly enough? Then let's try: I'd need to see some form of evidential support to accept that claim, and given that it appears to be quite integral to the on-going argument, I think it's probably best you establish this first. I don't think I've ever heard of something that SHOULD die but doesn't - it makes it sound like some kind of cosmic law hanging there. Are you working under the impression that all organisms are either freshwater or saltwater? That would be rather silly given the numerous examples I could furnish you with that comfortably inhabit both. This smells like another one of those 'I didn't know penguins couldn't fly' kind of scenarios.


asyncritus wrote:They don't, and one wonders how this astonishing feature evoived. But let that pass.


What an obtuse appeal to incredulity.

What about all the other organisms that inhabit both zones... and in fact the varying intermediaries between the 2 extremes? What about 'one wonders how freshwater fish evolved this astonishing feature of being able to live in freshwater' or 'one wonders how saltwater fish evolved this astonishing feature of being able to live in saltwater' - all such wonderings have equal validity - the eel is not a special case, which you seem to want people to believe. But, as you say, let that pass.


asyncritus wrote:THEY THEN SWIM DOWN THE WEST COAST OF EUROPE, DOWN THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA, PIGGY-BACKING ON THE CURRENTS FLOWING SOUTH, THEN THEY BRANCH OFF INTO THE SARGASSO SEA.


It's got caps everyone - I have a cunning feeling that this might be important... let's read it again.

They are born and mature seasonally, and they follow currents. Got it.


asyncritus wrote:Note, they have never made this trip before, and will never make it again. So the navigation instinct is in full swing. Origins anybody?


Ahh the next item on the Gish Gallop is presented. So, having given you information on why X other creature has evolved instincts, and you having routinely failed to rebut that with anything more than incredulity, your next gambit is simply to try it with another creature... and you think this is some kind of killer filler while you are getting round to debunking the ToE, do you?

:nono:

What's truly amazing is that there are papers on this very species... but apparently you haven't bothered to read them.

As a single example: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/onlinemonogra ... 2/0201.pdf

Life History and Evolution of Migration in Catadromous Eels (Genus Anguilla)

While I will let you peruse the paper in your own time (yes, I know it uses words like 'may' and 'could' - remember: this is a scientific text, not unchanging-even-when-wrong religious dogma) Amusingly enough, one of the key factors in the model is continental drift... which you may well recall me having tried to get you to consider in your notion of the evolution of migration. I note, with some amusement, that you still don't consider it. I presume this must be some kind of Young Earth nonsense, or some other form of scientific illiteracy. However, if you're going to 'debate' this topic, and you vaunt yourself to be capable of debunking the ToE, you do actually have to treat plate tectonics as well - you can't keep ignoring it, old boy!

In summary - migratory loops are proposed, with seasonal feeding grounds (yes, that other element where you put your fingers in your ears and say LALALA) and suitable spawning sites - remember that one I asked you about birds nesting in clouds? Oh how we laughed.


asyncritus wrote:They swim at depths of 3000 feet in the day, and come up to 250 feet at night. They cannot be navigating by the sun, stars or any light source, since it is entirely dark at those depths.


Oh dear Asyncritus. This is now the 3rd time of your tenure here where you have categorically shown your Morton's Demon. I expressly introduced you to the topic of magnetoception BY USING EELS! And apparently, so little interest do you have in this topic, that not only did you ignore me, not only did you fail to go and do even minimal research on it, but you are still ramming your thorough ignorance of it into people's faces in 'gotcha' forms.

And you wonder why you garner shitty responses - you fucking earn it.


asyncritus wrote:IN THE SARGASSO, THEY SPAWN, AND ALL THE ADULTS DIE. NONE EVER RETURNS TO THE HOME WATERS.


More unnecessary caps.


asyncritus wrote:The young, called glass eels, then swim all the way back to the European waters WITH NO GUIDES (being in that respect very much like the Pacific Golden Plover young). 3000 miles away, underwater at that.


Yes, bra-fucking-vo - just like the Plovers and for precisely the same reason... and in fact for any and all migratory animals, including butterflies, fish, elk, you name the migratory species and the basic answer's the same. But the devil's in the details, which is unfortunately way beyond the remit of your comprehension of this topic until you start processing some of the fundamentals. If you are just going to ignore what people inform you, no let's be frank - EDUCATE you in, then you are going to be trotting out these stupid Gish Gallops on line for years.

Now, let's recall the notion of magnetoception. Now, I appreciate that you do not have magnetoception, and probably labour under the assumption that God made humans teh l33t, and as such it seems absurd that some scrawny fish has this ability over you, but you can rest assured that no eels have the ability to mentally jack off to AiG fundie-porn on the internet - fair's fair.

Magnetoception is the ability to sense magnetic fields. That means that not only can the so imbued organism detect their latitude, their altitude, their heading, and their location vis-a-vis some genetically controlled destination, but that they have absolutely bugger all need for the maps you appear to think is magic that they get about without. Try thinking about it for once.


asyncritus wrote:They then return to the European freshwater, where they remain for some years until sexual maturity and then they repeat the journey their parents made, but which they have never seen themselves.


Magnetoception.


asyncritus wrote:I wonder just how many mutations and natural selections it took to evolve that lot.


Presumably quite a few, but then they have had hundreds of millions of years to tweak it - especially important with regards to a changing geography.


asyncritus wrote:But you can tell me, I'm sure.


Problem is mate, I told you all this before. As you didn't recall it, you're not likely to now, are ya? I expect you'll be on yet another site trying to foist this incredulity off onto others. I presume you consider it a form of proselytising? It requires about the same degree of disdain for others, and over-confidence in your antiquated beliefs.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#254  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 11:44 am

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:There is no such creature as "Swallow #1". There never was.

You keep making this mistake. Recognise it as an error, and stop doing it.


Oryx

You seriously mean to say that swallows existed from eternity, or from creation date?

See this is a straw-man, nowhere in his comment is there anything to conclude this nonsense from.

asyncritus wrote:When did the first swallow appear? Remember, you're denying the ORIGIN of species.

Keyword being SPECIES, not individual animal.


hey eshuis, if there wasn't a swallow #1, then swallows existed from all eternity.

But you're just being pathetic or worse.



Fucking platonic swallows.

No, Asyncritus - you are either being supremely deceitful of just plain stupid. You keep up these puerile strawmen. Nowhere ever in the history of evolutionary biology does any scientist or any paper ever remotely suggest that a species starts with a single individual.

You are not only wrong, but you are exhibiting an embarrassing level of stupidity to keep repeating this. Ray Comfort level.

If you want to engage, you need to raise your game astronomically. I don't actually think it's possible anymore.

You realise that if you want to attack a theory, you do at least need to comprehend the basics of it first instead of making up whatever notion takes your fancy and then attacking that... right?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#255  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 11:50 am

asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
mindhack wrote:
It does indicate just how old the earth and everything around us is. Amazing really. :)

The exact quantity of mutations is irrelevant to the question of how they know where to swim.

Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?




Errr... Async: when was Darwin alive?

How much time has occurred since then?

Can you list any invention or substantial progress in knowledge in other fields that has occurred in that same duration.


Now put the pieces together.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#256  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 01, 2012 12:09 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Brunitski wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:Why don't you answer what you have already been asked instead of bringing up yet something else you don't understand?


With reference to the eels, Onyx, if I were an evolutionist, your comment would be fully justified = I wouldn't have a clue as to how this behaviour could possibly have evolved.

But I do know. They were created that way.


Oh Really.

By Whom, did you say?


God, of course.

Of whose existence you have provided what evidence again? O that's right, nothing.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 13608
Age: 24
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#257  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 12:20 pm

asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower. I owe you a debunking, and here it is.


Oh deary me, Async.

You really do think you're capable, don't you?

:nono:

It's embarrassing.


asyncritus wrote:
What do you mean 'get into the genome'? What does that actually mean? It's already in the genome, it's the expression of the genome... it's not magically floating around in potential bird space waiting to be alighted on.


Since it was not present in the UCA, then where is it?


It IS the DNA - how many times do I have to spell this out to you? I explained this via bees 2 years ago, and you still persist in wallowing in ignorance.

I showed you how particular sections of bee DNA could be suppressed and they suddenly lost previously ubiquitously held traits.

Do you find that difficult to process? The traits ARE the DNA - yes, even behavioural ones! Of course, we're all well aware that neural circuitry in animals is also of great import - but then again, how are those neural circuits built? Ohh by DNA.

Did you get it yet, or do you want me to go back over the information yet again? I guess I might be being unfair here, and you're just struggling desperately to learn things that are clearly outside your ken.

But it's the attitude thing that makes me not want to help you and instead laugh at the ineptness that's at the core of all that hubris.




asyncritus wrote:
You have a population of birds living across an environment from optimal feeding grounds to non-optimal feeding grounds. As seasons change, as climate changes over millenia, these optimal and sub-optimal grounds shift. Birds would have started moving to wherever the food was or died (actually, numerous, probably the majority of species of birds did just that). That's partially genetically influenced, as in the drive to eat etc, but the actual specifics don't need to be encoded into the gene.


Good so far.


Well thanks, so nice of you to accept observations from reality. We might make a scientist of you yet! :)


asyncritus wrote:
There's not a map written in DNA with an alarm clock saying - move north 2 miles on October 3rd, land, eat, then fly 2 miles further.


That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd.


And I've told you before that this is not true. That's the median day they arrive and leave. Repeating falsehoods doesn't make for a very strong case, does it?

Now, let's recall (sigh yet again) the notion of being a biological organism. You need to eat. You need to breed. You need to raise your young.

How does one do that if one isn't a gregarious species, and lives in remote isolation? Well, how about if everyone's timing is the same, and everyone goes to the same location at the same time?

If you imagine a small population that is not very widely segregated, and you recall the notion of seasonal feeding grounds, you might well see how this could arise. You'd also presumably be able to work out how variations in this DNA would be harshly punished - no shagging for you if you arrive late, and consequently no offspring carrying your fashionably late gene.



asyncritus wrote:They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere.


Err no... they need neither. As I've taken pains to explain to you before. Now, they may have something akin to that - the existence of biological rhythms is universal in all organisms. Why do you sleep at night? Why do dogs grow a coat before it gets cold? Again, what you're fumbling around for, in the ignorance of the relevant topic, is chronobiology. Yes, people know about this shit. Yes, people have studied it. One of those wondrous things about science is that we don't have to reinvent the wheel - well, just so long as we don't assume we're far too intelligent to deign to look at other people's wheel designs, and set about building our square one.

Try doing some research... it really helps if you want to know what you're talking about - seriously.


asyncritus wrote:So

a. How did it get it wherever it is and
b. What mechanism do you propose for its origin?


Mutations, natural selection.

How many times do you need this repeated? If you aren't going to accept it as an answer, then challenge it. The fact is that you don't actually understand it as an answer - that's the plain truth, if only you'd admit it to yourself. Thus you keep regurgitating the same question but just use a different organism instead.

Wouldn't you like to actually get to the point? Even if you don't believe it, even if you think you've got a good enough case, isn't it time you actually looked into this? What are mutations? What is natural selection? I don't think you have the foggiest, do you?



asyncritus wrote:
Instead, there would have been variation in the population. Some birds would have stayed where they were and eked out a living on sub-optimal grounds and consequently gained adaptive traits that improved their survivability, others would have travelled further and further in search of food.


I don’t think anybody disputes this.


Who knows what you accept and don't - it's beyond my capacity to guess what perfectly normal fact you are suddenly going to reject, so I'd best spell it all out!


asyncritus wrote:
Over the generations, those birds whose genetic traits encouraged this behaviour would be retained, as they'd be passed onto their surviving offspring. Over the generations, these traits would have become more stringent with respect to the changing environment. They tied themselves into a survival strategy, and consequently there would be a strong selection pressure on their ability to traverse the world in this way as it's precisely how they survive.


But I see no explanation of
a. how a specific geographical location 7,800 miles away becomes programmed into the genome and
b. how a specific date becomes programmed in at the same time.


a) Because it was (at least the general location) held by numerous generations, thereby fixing it ever more solidly into the genome. Other behaviours and adaptations dovetailed onto this, if you'll excuse the pun, making it ever-increasingly of import to that particular species.

b) There's not a specific date. There are specific seasonal variations. Arrive late, miss the food or don't get laid. Thereby, your tardy gene doesn't survive in the population.

There are reams of papers on this... really hundreds, possibly thousands on evolutionary stable strategies. Again, considering the time and effort you put into 'debunking' this on the net, why is it you seem so blithely unaware of... well, just about everything relevant?



asyncritus wrote:If you said ‘specific season’, I might agree with you, but a specific date? No chance.


The specific date you keep touting is some kind of urban myth in your head. The date is a median.


asyncritus wrote:The return journey also presents a difficulty. How do the birds acquire the information needed to return, since the geographical and astronomical features are now in reverse order?


I fail to see how this is problematic if you accept the first. We can even ignore all geographical and astronomical features and reconsider the eel - the type of directive its working to is not a map like you're thinking. It's following senses in temperature, salinity, currents etc that match the genetically controlled drives, or whatever preferred word you'd use. So with the birds, they are following seasonally available food sources, they are assessing air temperatures, wind currents, sunlight duration, humidity, etc etc - the whole world is a clock if you know the signs to look for - even people can learn them. In fact, you don't even need to learn them, as I already said - why is it that people sleep at night and wake in the day? There's no difference in this whatsoever.



asyncritus wrote:And then they pass down the ACQUIRED information to their offspring. Not allowed.


Woahhh there! Where did that 'acquired' suddenly spring into the equasion? There's no justification for that? Even if there was, it doesn't gel with your Sky Daddy explanation, does it?

Fundamentally, it's not acquired, as explained numerous times. Certainly, in animals with more cerebral processing matter, there may well be elements of adaptive learning formed as experiences that aid them in later repetitions, and in other organisms you might even see this passed down culturally, just as we teach our children, but the primary explanation is that it's genetic. You do realise that IS an adequate answer? If you don't accept that as an answer, your entire screed is problematic as that's what everyone will provide as an answer. Instead, you'd need to actually talk substantively about what DNA does and how it does it. Otherwise, you're just tilting at windmills.


asyncritus wrote:Further, it must be obvious to you that a journey of 7,800 miles poses an enormous threat to their survival.


Errr no. It's obvious to me that NOT doing the journey of 7800 miles poses a far more significant threat to its survival, because I am not interested in a single bird, but the population, the remainder of which are all eating their full and shagging with abandon in the targeted destination... unlike your platonic bird which decided it was all just too much bother.


asyncritus wrote:Whether the swallows fly entirely over water is not clear to me, but the godwit flies 7000 miles, and the plover flies 2,800 miles entirely over water, with no stopping points possible.


Explained to you in the past. Continental Drift. Ignoring it in 3...2...1.... BAM it's gone! Ahhh potentially-thought provoking challenge solved!


asyncritus wrote:Therefore those migrations at least were not undertaken bit by bit.


Continental Drift. Ignoring it in 3...2...1.... BAM it's gone! Ahhh potentially-thought provoking challenge solved!



asyncritus wrote: There were simply no places to stop.


Continental Drift. Ignoring it in 3...2...1.... BAM it's gone! Ahhh potentially-thought provoking challenge solved!

Birds nesting on clouds again, Async?


asyncritus wrote:That means that gradual evolution and natural selection played no part in the production of these behaviours.

Continental Drift. Ignoring it in 3...2...1.... BAM it's gone! Ahhh potentially-thought provoking challenge solved!




asyncritus wrote:So consider your explanation debunked.


:doh:

Async. I explained all this to you 2 or 3 years ago on RDF. Why is it you refuse to learn? Do you think God will be angry with you?

Morton's Demon writ large.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#258  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 12:42 pm

asyncritus wrote:

I keep asking your to present your case(s) which will account for

a. The origin of the amphibians from fish, specifically how a fish managed to get out of the water and survive)


You mean that all those pictures and explanations I saw offered by other members were totally ignored? Oh how fucking typical.

Try 'mudskipper' and work out why your question is idiotic. There's no fucking crocoduck. No fish just leapt out onto land and survived. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of generations passed between aquatic and terrestrial - try considering what might just have happened in that intermediary period.



asyncritus wrote:
b. The bats' echolocation system


Have you ever seen blind people use echolocation? How does that happen then? Because it works? Oh yes, because it works.

You do realise that bats also have eyes, right?

Let's imagine a species that was not yet a bat, but had some of the characteristics that would eventually survive in bats. It's diurnal. It flies around in daytime. It uses its eyes. There's a feeding period between dawn and dusk. A variation arises that lets bats detect the spaces a little by using their shrill cry... they get an extra 30 minutes prime feeding when all the insects come out. How selected for would that be?

Now, that's an entirely made-up story. It's not what happened in the evolution of bats as their ancestors were actually nocturnal, and terrestrial. As far as we know from the fossil record, they behaved something like modern day small insectivorous mammals; they hunted at night, they climbed trees, and presumably leapt about a bit in the branches to either catch prey or avoid predators (there are plenty such extant animals living in this niche to provide ample comprehension if you struggle). Now, a more interesting question might be whether they started gliding first, or whether echolation came first. The answer, as far as we know, is that gliding came first as Onychonycteris finney, a 52 million year old species, had some traits adapted for flight but lacked the inner ear structure we associate with bats ability to finely process sounds. Now, if you conceive of populations as plastic, morphous entities, rather than the platonic bullshit you keep regurgitating from the 6th century BC, then you might comprehend the notion that there is space for improvement here, and improvements are retained by having more offspring carrying the same 'data' that gave the edge to the parent. Then you have a cycle of positive feed-back - as basic echolation becomes more widespread in a population, other adaptations can arise that coincide with it. A good example would be the slow loss of the ever-more unnecessary eye.

The problem is that you have several notions in your mind that are just plain wrong. No, that's not up for discussion. They are just wrong. This is why you find it difficult to conceive of the answers to your questions. Recall that populations evolve. Recall that every single child is the same species as its parent, but that it may be considered a different species than it's great, great, great (x100) grandparent. That notion of species is simply the arbitrary line we draw around a population in time that has (ironically quite platonic) sets of traits, or characteristics.

The very notion of species is, at least partially, evidence of our human incapacity to comprehend the natural world. It's useful for referral purposes, but it's very damaging to an untutored mind.


asyncritus wrote:
c. The swallow migration


Explained to you so many times that I'd actually rather teach Elementary Thai students the subjunctive than try it again. You just refuse to process information that you ideologically deny. It's Morton's Demon.


asyncritus wrote:and now, to add insult to injury, the migration of the eels.


I'd say 'embarrassing' more than anything.


asyncritus wrote:Have fun, but do try to produce some sort of facts and coherent arguments. If you have nothing to say, please say that.

(If possible, please avoid the 'OHHH-MMMMM mutations and natural selection' reflex mantra.


This translates as: I cannot comprehend what you mean, so please don't use that as I will ignore it.

It's like you asking what 1 + 1 is, then demanding we come up with something other than 2.

You can't have it both ways, mate. Either learn the basics, or go bother some clueless people who might swallow the bullshit you're proferring here.


asyncritus wrote:
Unless, of course, you can present some facts and maybe fossils(?) to support your miserably undernourished case).


Aside from the dozens of pages that makes an absolute mockery out of this hubris, when are you going to get round to presenting some evidence for your Magic Man Magicks It case?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#259  Postby Spearthrower » May 01, 2012 12:42 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?

1. Darwin founded the theory of evolution he's no longer the prime authority in the field. The theory has improved since then.
2. You apparently have a problem with metaphorical language, 'cause that's what he's using here, metaphors.


Heh heh heh. This couldn't be a cop out, could it? Hmmm. Quite possibly...



Only if your grasp of History is as tenuous as your grasp of Biology.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#260  Postby Shrunk » May 01, 2012 12:46 pm

asyncritus wrote:
The miracle of the "Swallows" of Capistrano takes place each year at the Mission San Juan Capistano, on March 19th, St. Joseph's Day.
http://www.sanjuancapistrano.net/swallows/

So why don't you shove that down your earhole and see where it lands?


:lol: Great scientific source there.

I guess the "miracle" is that swallows are supposed to show up every year on exactly the same date and yet they actually don't! Sometimes it can be a month later, and all that are seen are a few lonely swallows circling around in the sky!

Miracles just aren't what they used to be. What happened to things like the parting of the Red Sea?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 18790
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests