Origins Thread

[Kangal]

These are from personal notes I put together years ago. Feel free to source the info all by yourself, just as I had to back in the day

FFS.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

FFS.

That's right, you'll have to do some serious work for a change, instead of linking to the first bit of nonsense google finds for you.

 

[Kangal]

When you said bodies were all messed up and barely fit for purpose, obliquely attempting to deny the excellent design in mammalian systems, as we see in the suckling mechanisms of whales, as but one example. Do you deny that the underwater suckling mechanism for baby whales are quite brilliant?

Why are they "brilliant"?

A behavioural framework for the evolution of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals - PMC

Extant aquatic mammals are a key component of aquatic ecosystems. Their morphology, ecological role and behaviour are, to a large extent, shaped by their feeding ecology. Nevertheless, the nature of this crucial aspect of their biology is often ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Tiger]

When you said bodies were all messed up and barely fit for purpose, obliquely attempting to deny the excellent design in mammalian systems, as we see in the suckling mechanisms of whales, as but one example. Do you deny that the underwater suckling mechanism for baby whales are quite brilliant?

Tank, you do realize, anyone reading these threads can you you are an opportunist, way out of your depth, no?

100%

He pointed to ‘Lucy’ as a direct human ancestor in his first post.

He’s also brought the dog breeding canard into the equation too.

He’s a classic spoofer.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

A behavioural framework for the evolution of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals - PMC

Extant aquatic mammals are a key component of aquatic ecosystems. Their morphology, ecological role and behaviour are, to a large extent, shaped by their feeding ecology. Nevertheless, the nature of this crucial aspect of their biology is often ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This article google found for you has nothing to say regarding the evolution of underwater mammalian suckling systems . Why did you post it here??

 

[Kangal]

That's right, you'll have to do some serious work for a change, instead of linking to the first bit of nonsense google finds for you.

PG....show us these sources or fuck off.

We are all used to 'wall of text" arguments here. It's just bullshit.

Can you actually make a reasoned argument, with evidence?

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Why are they "brilliant"?

If an engineer had designed them, they'd be getting a Nobel prize.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

PG....show us these sources or fuck off.

Says the source less, no-data wonderkind

Behave clown!

 

[Kangal]

This article google found for you has nothing to say regarding the evolution of underwater mammalian suckling systems . Why did you post it here??

It's an 8000 word article.

But you replied straight away.

You're a spoofer. Go fuck yourself PG. I would have some respect for you if you had pretended to read it.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

It's an 8000 word article.

But you replied straight away.

You're a spoofer. Go fuck yourself PG. I would have some respect for you if you had pretended to read it.

Control F is great for finding the necessary key words. They weren't there. You read the whole 8000 words in the 3 seconds it took google to find it for you?

Great so, post the section on whale nipples and infant feeding you found useful to the convo

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

What a retarded tactic btw - lob some irrelevant 8000 word article, not related at all to anything under discussion, and then claim some sort of gotcha.

I can tell you are not on the higher end of the pay scales there Tank.

 

[Tiger]

It's an 8000 word article.

But you replied straight away.

You're a spoofer. Go fuck yourself PG. I would have some respect for you if you had pretended to read it.

I presume you posted this ‘evidence’ because of the description in section 4.

The pertinent part referred to ‘rapitorial feeding being a likely” transitional feeding process.

So again, more poor speculation being passed off as evidence.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I presume you posted this ‘evidence’ because of the description in section 4.

The pertinent part referred to ‘rapitorial feeding being a likely” transitional feeding process.

So again, more poor speculation being passed off as evidence.

Still not sure what the relevance is , as Tank never leads with an opinion, just expects you to trawl through 8000 words that have no direct bearing, on a random web link.

Of course, Tank will never make a definitive point, as that would mean defending it. Easier to let google do all the work , whatever he thinks he might be achieving. God only knows

Tank and Jambo went to the same educational system clearly. Impossible to pin down what they are on about.

 

[Kangal]

Control F is great for finding the necessary key words. They weren't there. You read the whole 8000 words in the 3 seconds it took google to find it for you?

Great so, post the section on whale nipples and infant feeding you found useful to the convo

Spoofer.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Spoofer.

Prove me wrong. Which of the 8000 words did you find relevant to the convo? Should be easy enough to locate and explain your point at the same time? I mean, you spent ages reading it and finding it useful , no?

 

[Kangal]

Easier to let google do all the work , whatever he thinks he might be achieving.

I just point at the research.

You have no counter argument.

 

[Tiger]

Spoofer.

Dude, you are literally king of the spoofers.

You’re going to have to do better than random google searches tomorrow.

 

[Tiger]

Prove me wrong. Which of the 8000 words did you find relevant to the convo? Should be easy enough to locate and explain your point at the same time? I mean, you spent ages reading it and finding it useful , no?

He won’t. He’ll deflect ad naseum

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I just point at the research.

You have no counter argument.

Argument to what, you made no point?
what research? How was it relevant to the conversation. Are you not able to tell us ? why not
are you stupid?

 

[Tiger]

I just point at the research.

You have no counter argument.

That research didn’t answer Plunkett’s question.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

He won’t. He’ll deflect ad naseum

Of course, probably a bot.

 

[Kangal]

, you spent ages reading it and finding it useful , no?

Yes!

Show me its incorrect.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

That research didn’t answer Plunkett’s question.

It was never supposed to. He can't and this is the deflection tactic

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Yes!

Show me its incorrect.

which bit did you find particularly compelling and useful?

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I just point at the research.

You mean, like one of those homeless lads they give a few bob to , to hold a shop sign with an arrow, on street corners?

Makes sense.

 

[Kangal]

which bit did you find particularly compelling and useful?

Show me its incorrect.
Spend some time on it.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I'll be moving on to the list of the most famous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolutionary science tomorrow Tank. Prepare a list of random, non relevant links for us.

Well past my bedtime

 

[Kangal]

PG can't do it. Or Tiger.

Lost people.

 

[Fishalt]

Could you tell us how natural selection knew , in advance, how to organize the suckling of baby mammals underwater, as per the needs of whale evolution?

Whales do have nipples. They are contained under kind of skin flaps which keeps everything hydrodynamic. The design hoqwever is not amazing as you seem to believe. For example, whale calves actually can't even suckle milk properly because their mouths simply don't function this way, and they cannot create any suction. What you're seeing is a kind of 'Jerry-Rigging'; a kind of ersatz nipple-feeding system that is a remnant from their ancestors. No engineer would design such a system, because it is cumbersome, inefficent, problematic and somewhat retarded.

The primary mistake you keep making is thinking that EBNS 'knows' anything. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to. Evolution by natural selection works by throwing out random mutations in a given species population, and if these accrue some kind of survival benefit in a practical, real-world setting, they persist in the gene pool simply as a matter of due process.These changes might make no difference at all and still persist in the gene pool, however.

For example, I get a snake here called the Coastal Taipan. Its venom is so potent that one bite is enough to kill 100,000 mice. It is also notorious for never dry-biting; that is, whenever it strikes, it hits its prey with everything it's got. Now I ask you, Mr Intelligent design, what exactly is the point of that? The largest thing it ever eats are bandicoots, which are very small mammals, and rats and mice. It only needs to feed once every 1-2 months, also. Venom is extremely energy-intensive to produce. There is absolutely no logical reason for this venom to be as potent as it is. It makes absolutely no sense at all.


And that's because nature is blind design. The Taipan doesn't even know it is venomous at all, let alone how venomous it is. The reason its venom is so potent is because...well, there was no reason for it not to get stronger and stronger over time, because this didn't impact its survival rate. Conversely, there was no enviornmental pressure augmenting it to get weaker, either. Millions of years later we end up with an animal pointlessly packing a nuclear weapon; an animal so deadly, for so little reason that it is equivalent to using an ICBM to kill a cockroach.

You're going from A to Z without considering everything inbetween. Whales/porpoises would have existed in an intermediary stage of evolution that was markedly different from their current forms. It's possible their common ancestor(S) were something like modern Hippopotamus, a sem-squatic mammal. Something about their environment made them evolve to become fully aquatic over an enormous expanse of time.

This article explains quite a lot.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2

 

[Hermit]

Rogans interview with Meyer is interesting.

Instead of countering Meyer’s bio molecular challenges to evolution, he spent the entire time just saying “yeah, but isn’t it possible that we could find an answer to that in the future”. This is a classic evolutionist tactic to avoid uncomfortable truths about their shallow knowledge of what is supposed to explain their existential worldview.

That's known as an Appeal to the Future fallacy, commonly used by defenders of pseudoscience.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Now I ask you, Mr Intelligent design, what exactly is the point of that?

The thing is though that all Christians- whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox- believe that not just humanity but the entire nature that we see around us is radically fallen, and if anything becoming more so. So what you point out there would indeed be a problem for the majority of Muslims however it is not really one for us.

 

[Hermit]

Says a flat earther.

That's both a genetic fallacy and a non-sequitur. Tell me the number one reason why you believe earth is a ball in the flat earth thread.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Whales and dolphins can't suckle that well.

Look lads, the nipple expert has spoken. Probably has his own clamped.

Behave yourself with such nonsense!

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AxqLsKmMA

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Whales do have nipples. They are contained under kind of skin flaps which keeps everything hydrodynamic. The design hoqwever is not amazing as you seem to believe. For example, whale calves actually can't even suckle milk properly because their mouths simply don't function this way

There is a reason babies get burped. Mammalian suckling usually involves breathing at the same time, and this can cause issues with liquid being inhaled/gas etc. The whale system of injecting milk, via specially adapted muscles, deep into the gullet and avoiding the breathing apparatus is genius, especially underwater. Milk going only into the mouth cavity could easily be dispersed under water also.

That's a major design win for whale infant feeding.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

The primary mistake you keep making is thinking that EBNS 'knows' anything. It doesn't, and it doesn't need to. Evolution by natural selection works by throwing out random mutations in a given species population, and if these accrue some kind of survival benefit in a practical, real-world setting, they persist in the gene pool simply as a matter of due process.These changes might make no difference at all and still persist in the gene pool, however.

Tell us exactly how this mechanism works, because as best as I can determine, the argument is a circular one that goes like this:

Animals breed, the offspring that are brought forth are fitter, merely by virtue of being born, and so 'natural selection' has just won another victory.

Is that the sum of it? Natural selection is really just a fancy term that attempts to invoke some kind of 'magical process', while in fact being nothing more than nature taking its course?

How exactly does 'natural selection' throw out or keep anything? What is the bio-chemical mechanism at work, the term refers to?

And there is still no examples of positive mutations in nature. I'd be happy to break down the sickle cell fallacy for those still flogging that horse.

 

[Tiger]

Show me its incorrect.
Spend some time on it.

Grade A spoofer.

 

[Wolf]

Grade A spoofer.

Amongst other things......

 

[Tiger]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AxqLsKmMA

This is an interesting video. I would personally recommend Tank watches it, as he thinks dog variation is literal evolution.

In the video the presenter mentions the bear variation from Brown bear to Polar bear, but doesn’t go into much detail about the negative mutations that brought about the polar bear. The scientists who studied the mutations in the gene showed that they too were damaging to its function.

In fact, of all the genes that were most highly selected, half damaged the function of the respective coded proteins.

In addition, since most altered genes bore several mutations, three to six out of seventeen genes were free of degrading changes. To put it another way, 65 to 83 percent of helpful, positively selected genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation.

The Polar bear has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. So, rather then evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving.

 

[Tiger]

Tell us exactly how this mechanism works, because as best as I can determine, the argument is a circular one that goes like this:

Animals breed, the offspring that are brought forth are fitter, merely by virtue of being born, and so 'natural selection' has just won another victory.

Is that the sum of it? Natural selection is really just a fancy term that attempts to invoke some kind of 'magical process', while in fact being nothing more than nature taking its course?

How exactly does 'natural selection' throw out or keep anything? What is the bio-chemical mechanism at work, the term refers to?

And there is still no examples of positive mutations in nature. I'd be happy to break down the sickle cell fallacy for those still flogging that horse.

I think this reference to biochemical evidence will be the key to arriving at anything close to truth regarding evolution.

Darwin himself felt that his theory would be tested properly only with the ability to study the biochemical evidence versus the phenotype conjecture.

The storytelling side of evolution which is not backed up by credible evidence should be ignored.