rationalskepticism.org

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?



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.