Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 187 (810981)
06-03-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dogmafood
06-03-2017 1:29 PM


Re: Help wanted: No designer need apply
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:29 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 187 (811014)
06-04-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dogmafood
06-04-2017 7:19 AM


Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 7:19 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 7:49 AM jar has not replied
 Message 80 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 8:01 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 187 (811019)
06-04-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dogmafood
06-04-2017 8:01 AM


No designer has ever applied.
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 8:01 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 187 (811081)
06-04-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dogmafood
06-04-2017 8:23 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dogmafood, posted 06-05-2017 4:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 187 (811240)
06-06-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dogmafood
06-05-2017 4:24 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dogmafood, posted 06-05-2017 4:24 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 5:20 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 187 (811302)
06-06-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dogmafood
06-06-2017 5:20 PM


Any designer is irrelevant.
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:

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 5:20 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 187 (811306)
06-06-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dogmafood
06-06-2017 6:49 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 8:53 PM jar has replied
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:20 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 187 (811325)
06-07-2017 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dogmafood
06-06-2017 8:53 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Yes, you did understand. But you are experienced it seems in quote mining and taking parts out of context.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dogmafood, posted 06-06-2017 8:53 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 113 of 187 (822200)
10-20-2017 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:22 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:22 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:56 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 117 of 187 (822222)
10-21-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:56 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:56 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:46 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 187 (822245)
10-21-2017 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:46 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:46 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:59 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 121 of 187 (822247)
10-21-2017 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:59 PM


LOL
Keep asking really stupid questions and you might just learn.
Think.
Would secreting something that could be suckled as nutrition help?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:59 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:22 PM jar has replied
 Message 125 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:59 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 123 of 187 (822249)
10-21-2017 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dredge
10-21-2017 8:22 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:22 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:54 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 187 (822257)
10-21-2017 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dredge
10-21-2017 8:54 PM


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?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 8:54 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 9:33 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 187 (822264)
10-21-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dredge
10-21-2017 9:33 PM


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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 9:33 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024