Posted: Apr 12, 2020 5:04 pm
by Spearthrower
Wortfish wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Do you use a hammer or simply put your head in a vise to come up with shit like this?

Every one if those conditional statements are true. " is certainly the case." It doesn't matter a toss what you believe to be true, cannot, or will not understand. Reality shows us otherwise.

Come back when your arguments are worthy. Or when you actually have one.

Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why:

What on Earth are you talking about?

You're trying to use arguments from teleology - which is directly contrary and antithetical to evolution - in order to dispute evolution.

You'd save yourself time going and buying a 3 by 2 metre board and a tin of paint, scrawling "I'm abjectly fucking clueless" on it and sticking it up in your front yard.

Wortfish wrote:
It isn't just that natural selection cannot promote traits that are not of immediate and sufficient benefit, the variations responsible for the traits may just not occur.

Your arrogance is not a proxy for comprehension.

NS doesn't 'promote' traits - it is the process whereby traits are retained or eliminated statistically in a population based on the number of copies of the genes underpinning those traits. You're reifying NS - it's not a thing, it's an outcome, a process.

If the variations for a trait don't occur, then there is no trait there to be discussed.

You need to know the basics of what you're talking about to have any hope of blagging.

Wortfish wrote:Imagination and speculation have hard physical limits to overcome.

Whereas arrogance and ignorance are unbounded, particularly when comorbid.

Which bit of 'your argument from incredulity' is fucking useless don't you grasp?