At every turn, Async tries to get us to explain the how and why of a situation that would only occur if magical creation were the case.

Even an inkling of what evolutionary theory actually says would be rather useful.

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.

Spearthrower 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?

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

It's Platonism at every turn.

I see you have a healthy intolerance of Platonism, how much of this is due to good old Volker Sommer I wonder.

GenesForLife wrote:

Spearthrower 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?

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

It's Platonism at every turn.

I see you have a healthy intolerance of Platonism, how much of this is due to good old Volker Sommer I wonder.

You might well be right there! Actually, even Social Anthropology was very interested in Platonism and what it had done to human thought for the couple of millenia it was prevalent in intellectual circles.

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.

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

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

Why not now?

asyncritus wrote:In the meantime, until I manage to get round to that, here is the tale of the Eels.

How about the questions the others and I have been asking you for several pages now? Ever going to address them?

asyncritus wrote:Let's have a few more insults instead of explanations.

Again, pointing out the flaws in your arguments and questions isn't insulting it's a statement of the facts, no matter how much you dislike that.

asyncritus wrote:Let me spare you the bother: 'OHH_MMMMMMM mutations and natural selection;

Your childish comment.

asyncritus wrote:Gish Galloping;

Inaccurate quote mine.

asyncritus wrote:the answer has already been given;

True.

asyncritus wrote:I am ignoring the given answers.

That and you are denying that they have been given.

asyncritus wrote: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?

If you are willing to address the explanations given to you, as well as the many questions posed to you, yes we can.

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.

Why?

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

Yes, because an argument from personal incredulity still isn't logical.

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.

Unless your caps-lock is broken there's no need to write everything in capital letters, the bold, cursive and underlining options are plenty sufficient to accentuate your point.

asyncritus wrote:Note, they have never made this trip before,

But their parents did.

asyncritus wrote:and will never make it again.

Don't see the relevance of this.

asyncritus wrote:So the navigation instinct is in full swing. Origins anybody?

No matter how much you dislike having it pointed out to you, this has been explained already, several times.

asyncritus wrote:They swim at depths of 3000 feet in the day, and come up to 250 feet at night.

Again, relevance?

asyncritus wrote:They cannot be navigating by the sun, stars or any light source, since it is entirely dark at those depths.

There are more ways to navigate than just by light.

I

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

Again, no need for capital letters, it just looks foolish.

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,

They do.

asyncritus wrote:underwater at that.

This is a problem because?

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.

You have never seen someone cry before you're born, yet you know how to do it when you come out of your mothers womb.

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

No idea, nor is the exact quantity relevant.
Your personal incredulity still isn't a logical and therefore neither a valid counter argument.

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

And this is still just an argument from ignorance.

I haven't presented an argument. Just a few facts, for which you are required to produce some kind of scientific answer.

How about it then?

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

I can't answer no answers. What did you say yours was again?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

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

No idea, nor is the exact quantity relevant.
Your personal incredulity still isn't a logical and therefore neither a valid counter argument.

It does indicate just how old the earth and everything around us is. Amazing really.

asyncritus wrote:I haven't presented an argument. Just a few facts, for which you are required to produce some kind of scientific answer.

How about it then?

We are required to do nothing at all. I'm not familiar with the case of these Eels you speak of and it could be the case that noone knows how they evolved their specific behavior. Remarkable as that behavior may be, that's all irrelevant. I Could suggest mechanisms that fit with evolutionary theory, but until they are submitted to some kind of test they'd remain speculation, which I imagine you would caricature and ridicule to no end, whether it was technically valid or not.

The factual nature of evolution isn't contingent on being able to immediately explain why some obscure organism does what it does. The mechanism of evolution has been and is being continously, directly observed. Species change, and this change leaves evidence in the fossils, comparative anatomy, development, and molecular evidence in the form of the hierarchical arrangement of genomes in phylogenetic reconstructions, which fits REMARKABLY well with the trees constructed from comparative anatomy alone.

Creotards have no explanation for this phenomenon, other than to say "that's what the designer wanted". There is no logical expectation that a "Brilliant, incredible designer" should design his biosphere to look like it evolved. It is however a direct prediction of evolution that said hierarchical distribution of genomes into the pertinent phylogenetic trees should be found.

It's funny how no ID-theorists were around at the dawn of genetics to suggest that we should find said distribution of genomes. It is entirely a post-hoc rationalization, and an unfalsifiable one at that. Whatever the fuck we find could always be asserted to be "what the designer wanted" as long as ID-"theorists" are unwilling or able to speculate on the contraints and wishes said designer worked under. Strangely, they seem to think he operated under no constraints at all. How's that for good science?

asyncritus wrote:I haven't presented an argument. Just a few facts, for which you are required to produce some kind of scientific answer.

How about it then?

Facts don't require an answer, a fact is something that is proven to be true, not a question.

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?

I can't answer no answers.

?!?

mindhack wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

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

No idea, nor is the exact quantity relevant.
Your personal incredulity still isn't a logical and therefore neither a valid counter argument.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know how this all works. But you do know that
a) there are sea currents which do most of the work.
b) there is a phenomenon called continental drift. The areas used to be much closer together. Plenty of time for natural selection to improve the navigational capabilities. Those with a properly functioning TomTom make it and get kids; the ones with a faulty compass don't.

Bert

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mindhack wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

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

No idea, nor is the exact quantity relevant.
Your personal incredulity still isn't a logical and therefore neither a valid counter argument.

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?

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.

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

Begging the question.
Again try reading a high school biology book and prevent future moronic claims like these.

asyncritus wrote:But you're just being pathetic or worse.

Since you have failed to refute any of my arguments and furthermore have not even addressed half my questions and challenges, that's rather a rather hypocritical statement and yet another dishonest dismissal.

mindhack wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mindhack wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No idea, nor is the exact quantity relevant.
Your personal incredulity still isn't a logical and therefore neither a valid counter argument.

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?

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?