|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: No it hasn't. You make the unsupported claim that if it were designed then the design is faulty. What would a properly designed evolutionary process look like? Again, you are simply trying to move the goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention. What I have said is what is seen is inefficient, inept, unintelligent, ineffective. It can be and has been explained. There is no reason, point, need or logic to imagine a designer but looking at what exists, the designer if there was a designer is ignorant, inefficient, ineffective, inept and inane. As I have said, no designer need apply and any discussion of some imaginary designer is simply mental masturbation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive? Yes, and no. That is a designer can use the process we label evolution but the end product is not that of the designer but rather just the process. But again, even in such cases the only evidence of any designer is the presence of the designer. No one has ever presented any evidence of any designer when it comes to living things beyond the few examples of forced breeding as with domesticated animals. There two the evidence of the designer is not in the resultant product but rather in the presence of the designer. When it comes to live in general, No Designer need apply and no Designer has ever applied. There is no value in supposing life as we see it is designed beyond mental masturbation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. But that is an argument that no one is making. Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer. No one is saying that no one would design it that way. Rather what has been said is that there is NO evidence of design or of any designer and so no designer need apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, there is a significant difference between the two statements.
The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ... The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply. Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that life is not designed and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence? My point was to start a discussion about the actual evidence that is the variety of reproduction methods found as well as the characteristics of those methods. Designers are utterly irrelevant and simply fantasy. There does not seem to be any design involved in the universe and so again, no designer need apply. Folk can believe there was a designer or creator but such beliefs are of no value or relevance. AbE:
PT writes: I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled. But what question? Why is it valid? There are already explanations available and so no designer needs to be considered. Why add some unnecessary and untestable entity? Edited by jar, : see AbE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence? No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods. Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is.
PT writes: The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer. That's fine. You can even propose a topic on the subject.
PT writes: You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable? LOL. Not when nonsense like "the objective of the designer is unknown" gets introduced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, you did understand. But you are experienced it seems in quote mining and taking parts out of context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Too funny.
Or placental mammals did not evolve directly from reptiles but rather other forms of mammals such as marsupials. Remember the big difference is really pretty minor across several boundaries, and there are also reptiles that give live birth as well as species of reptiles that have a structure similar to a mammalian placenta such as skinks. Egg production happens even in the Great Apes like humans. The variety and evolution of reproduction methods is amazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
silly child writes: Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck. Silly Rabbi, Kicks are for Trids. How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection. You really need to go back and learn some of the very basic basics. There was never a goal to "Develop a mammary system" or any other system. Anyone beyond elementary school should understand that. Evolution is not goal oriented or even directional. Go back and try to learn the basics before trying to sound like you know squat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
Keep asking really stupid questions and you might just learn. Think. Would secreting something that could be suckled as nutrition help?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
lol
slowly and over long periods of time. Remember milk is never a goal. And things that do not help the next generation live long enough to reproduce get eliminated. You are still thinking that milk is a goal. It wasn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: In other words, you have no idea how the production of milk evolved. Once again you are simply showing your utter ignorance. I already explained the basics to you. Lets move slowly one small step at a time. First, you understand that milk is simply not something necessary for life? There are plants that do not need milk, fish that do not need milk, e-coli that do not need milk, birds that do not need milk and all reproduce. You do understand that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: In other words, you have no idea how milk production evolved. Too funny. You already tried that and I pointed out that you are wrong. If you want to learn then let's try small baby steps.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024