re: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation...

quote:

---

This is like asking why did humanity create fire. Or the spear.

---

no. it's not like asking that AT ALL. there is no known reason for one organism to have started consuming another. much less figuring out HOW an organism developed the MEANS to do so. predation allegedly predated humans so your comparison is just plain silly

quote:

---

It's because they needed to

---

that's the point - why? WHY did the FIRST organism do that? HOW did the first organism do that?

quote:

---

it was advantageous

---

how do you know this? you don't. you're just answering from a anthropogenic standpoint.

quote:

---

they adapted to an environment they could thrive in

---

no, according to ucd, organisms were ALREADY thriving before predation. it appears you don't understand the situation.

quote:

---

You can be sure it happened and for obvious reasons

---

see, this is the kind of blithe handwaving that bothers people who see the holes in ucd. "let's just accept it because we're way past bronze age myths"

quote:

---

Because it was advantageous to their species survival.

---

again, you don't know this. you're just parroting middle school evolution type responses.

quote:

---

It was a mutation

---

there's the old evolution ad hoc fallback

quote:

---

Because those cubs are going to grow up soon and likely be stronger than he is, and then kill him

---

i'm pretty sure that's not the reason. it's because they came from another male. otherwise, he would be out killing every cub he could find, which obviously doesn't happen.

quote:

---

That and because it's in their nature.

---

which just repeats the question i asked earlier. re: preservation vs natural selection

quote:

---

Do you really think most animals are capable of actively planning their species future survival and isn't mostly acting out of self preservation?

---

do you realize that cheetahs, dolphins and wolves cooperate to hunt? so you're telling me they can't figure out "hey, don't kill cubs. our species needs them"? humans developed the notion so why can't others? humans are allegedly just sophisticated animals right?

quote:

---

I can't think of an animal that doesn't do this in some form, otherwise they wouldn't have made it at all.

---

but you just said they can't. which is it? and if they can as you now seem to be saying, why do they kill the young from another litter? how is that them preserving the species?

quote:

---

Because they can live to frick and breed another day.

---

the question was about preservation of the species. the behavior you're describing is apathy.

quote:

---

They're pretty damn protective of their young.

---

so when 50 wildebeests are watching a lion eat a calf from 50 yards away, this is preservation of the species? playing the odds in a numbers game is not preservation of the species. they could easily gore and kick the lion to death and send a pretty strong message to the rest of the pride.

it occurs to me that you haven't really though these issues through.

quote:

---

You would've used less words.

---

Fewer. You would've used fewer words.

quote:

---

Favoured

---

frick your, you British arse

quote:

---

no. it's not like asking that AT ALL. there is no known reason for one organism to have started consuming another. much less figuring out HOW an organism developed the MEANS to do so. predation allegedly predated humans so your comparison is just plain silly

---

You seem to think that bacteria is able to reason like humans though. All it has is a drive to survive. Trees and plants have that drive, which is why they grow vertically to get to the sunlight.

quote:

---

that's the point - why? WHY did the FIRST organism do that? HOW did the first organism do that?

---

Here's a scenario for how this could have played out: They live off of a volcanic vent, and then that suddenly goes out. One of two things will happen in this scenario a) they all die or b) they have to have another fuel source. Their drive allowed them to do this, and I think they would have been ingesting at least parts of each other from the start. They were asexual beings, so cooperation wasn't really necessary at all for the time and largely to the modern day.

quote:

---

how do you know this? you don't. you're just answering from a anthropogenic standpoint.

---

Because look at biology today. They can spread if they can get other sources of fuel besides volcanic vents. If not, then they can merely stay at the volcanic vents.

quote:

---

no, according to ucd, organisms were ALREADY thriving before predation. it appears you don't understand the situation.

---

It appears to me that you think every organism has human reasoning skills and desires and that things sometimes just happen that advance them as a species. Really do you think the flu gets together every year and decide how they're going to beat this year's vaccinations?

And what the hell do you mean by "UCD"? I googled it with evolution and am only able to find things involving UC Davis. Are you referring to some study they did or is this just some crazy thing that you Bible thumpers made up?

quote:

---

see, this is the kind of blithe handwaving that bothers people who see the holes in ucd. "let's just accept it because we're way past bronze age myths"

---

Ever heard of "Murphy's Law"? Sorry, but I think anything that can happen will happen. It's not bizarre to me to think that a lizard once saw a fish, jumped into the water, ate it, and it and its descendants thrived off of it. But just the fact that I can't 100% confirm that that happened at one point when it's highly probable makes you think you are correct. Sorry, but I like to live off of what is probable, and rational, not as you put it "bronze age myths".

quote:

---

again, you don't know this. you're just parroting middle school evolution type responses.

---

Because it's pretty simple shite that is going over your head. I am required to boil my terms down to a middle school level, because there's no chance in hell you will understand it at a collegiate level.

quote:

---

i'm pretty sure that's not the reason. it's because they came from another male. otherwise, he would be out killing every cub he could find, which obviously doesn't happen.

---

But you seem to think of everything as how you personally would reason it and not how another organism would, which clearly goes as low as a bacteria for you.

As Ludwig Wittgenstein: If a lion could speak, we could not understand him. It's because their minds work on a level we can't process as humans, and ours work on a level that they can't understand.

Just fully understand this, here is Karl Pilkington arguing with Ricky Gervais about that point: LINK

quote:

---

which just repeats the question i asked earlier. re: preservation vs natural selection

---

They're two totally unrelated terms. The preservation and its evolution are not mutually exclusive. Horseshoe crabs and crocs have been at equilibrium with their environment for many millions of years.

quote:

---

do you realize that cheetahs, dolphins and wolves cooperate to hunt? so you're telling me they can't figure out "hey, don't kill cubs. our species needs them"? humans developed the notion so why can't others? humans are allegedly just sophisticated animals right?

---

Those animals are also very intelligent. Very few animals mourn their dead, those animals being us, dolphins, whales, chimps, gorillas, and elephants. If they did, then most of them would not have the intelligence to get beyond it. Like if an antelope did it, they'd be a mess.

And animals don't think things through. They're about survival and rely mostly on instinct and not critical thought.

quote:

---

but you just said they can't. which is it? and if they can as you now seem to be saying, why do they kill the young from another litter? how is that them preserving the species?

---

Animals are all different than each other. Unlike you morons, I don't have the answer for every question, but I sure as shite don't try to think like an animal because I know I don't truly process how they think. But this isn't a gotcha moment. You're more clueless than I am when you think that a bacteria reasoned out how to eat another organism.

quote:

---

the question was about preservation of the species. the behavior you're describing is apathy.

---

Those two terms aren't connected at all. Why would a mantis benefit from having apathy? And hell, apathy implies that you have the actual power to be compassionate and the intelligence to possess it. 99.99999% of species aren't smart enough to comprehend this. It's ridiculous to think that a possum (which only lives for 2 years) is going to have the same reasoning as an elephant (that can live until their 80s). It's ridiculous.

quote:

---

so when 50 wildebeests are watching a lion eat a calf from 50 yards away, this is preservation of the species? playing the odds in a numbers game is not preservation of the species. they could easily gore and kick the lion to death and send a pretty strong message to the rest of the pride.

---

Yeah, so wildebeests are intelligent enough to play the odds, talk out concrete battle strategies to take the lions, and outwit them, and not go with an instinct that has allowed their species to do relatively fine for millions of years.

It's astounding to me that someone is stupid enough to think that animals think the exact same way humans do.

quote:

---

it occurs to me that you haven't really though these issues through.

---

Thank you for your time, Karl. A real honor for you to be posting here. Big fan.

quote:

---

Uncle Stu

---

RickyLaughingUncontrollably.wav

quote:

---

And you keep sounding dumber and dumber

---

for someone who is uninitiated in critical thinking, i could see why they would say this

quote:

---

It just happens provided by chance and it turns out to be advantageous.

---

the fact that you think this is some sort of answer to the questions i posed is pretty sad. this is essentially a non answer and "hey, just accept it and stop rocking the boat."

quote:

---

You may as well be saying

---

no - as i said before, it's not like that at all. the situations i listed were totally unintuitive whereas you keep referring back to a homo sapien situation that is perfectly reasonable. i'm sorry you don't understand that.

quote:

---

All it has is a drive to survive

---

yet another non-answer answer. "it's just the way it is. stop thinking critically."

quote:

---

Their drive allowed them to do this

---

no matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become explanatory or scientifically rigorous. it's just an ad hoc shot in the dark. you aren't addressing the operational aspect of my questions

quote:

---

Because look at biology today

---

now that's a scientific response right there. "evolution bro. pass the doob."

quote:

---

It appears to me that you think every organism has human reasoning skills

---

the behaviors/traits i listed are complex. the fact that they can't communicate at a hominid level suggests that the trait challenges current notions of evolutionary forces. i'm not the only person who has pointed that out in this thread. but you seem to think that blithe, brainless hand waving suffices to dispel these challenges.

quote:

---

And what the hell do you mean by "UCD"?

---

aside from the fact that i already mentioned what the abbreviation stands for (universal common descent), now i know i'm dealing with someone who probably isn't equipped to respond to the questions i'm posing. but continue throwing out non-answers

quote:

---

you Bible thumpers

---

ah, the old ad hominem - when you know basically nothing about my background. good one genius

quote:

---

it's highly probable

---

based on what? this is the kind of gaping hole your responses are full of

quote:

---

But you seem to think of everything as how you personally would reason it and not how another organism would

---

i'm asking simple questions that you aren't answering - and then you're acting like there's something wrong with me because i'm pointing out your responses are vapid.

quote:

---

The preservation and its evolution are not mutually exclusive

---

what does this even mean? it doesn't answer the questions i asked. why do iguanas bury their eggs several dozen feet from safety so that their hatchlings have to run a gauntlet of racer snakes the second they're hatched? explain how this behavior fits with preservation of the species. the parents aren't even there to fend off the snakes when the eggs hatch.

quote:

---

Horseshoe crabs and crocs have been at equilibrium with their environment for many millions of years.

---

this has nothing to do with the tension between preservation of the species and natural selection

quote:

---

They're about survival and rely mostly on instinct and not critical thought

---

here you are making my point for me - i have highlighted behaviors that are complex and unintuitive in animals that don't have higher reasoning capability or communication. i'm asking how they developed and your response of "because evolution dude" is insufficient.

quote:

---

I don't have the answer for every question

---

this much is clear yet you keep posting non-answers and making insults. very enlightening

quote:

---

You're more clueless than I am when you think that a bacteria reasoned out how to eat another organism.

---

that's not at all what i stated and you're totally missing the point. tuptiger also responded to this.

quote:

---

so wildebeests are intelligent enough to play the odds, talk out concrete battle strategies to take the lions, and outwit them, and not go with an instinct that has allowed their species to do relatively fine for millions of years.

---

first, it takes basically no intelligence to know that you have the numbers and you can gore/kick the lions to death. it's part of their instinct yet, they don't employ it when they easily could. it would be, as you say, completely advantageous for them to do so and would be an outworking of preservation of the species. second, just because they haven't gone extinct doesn't mean that there isn't a better, easily employed behavior that would yield even greater benefits and would instantiate preservation of the species. again, they aren't doing that. why not?

quote:

---

It's astounding to me that someone is stupid enough to think that animals think the exact same way humans do.

---

again, i never said anything of the sort. no wonder your responses are a bunch of rambling nonsense.

quote:

---

yet another non-answer answer. "it's just the way it is. stop thinking critically."

---

But that's my point. You seem to think that bacteria had to actively decide whether it was going to consume another organism. It was an impulse that it reacted to that could be caused by hundreds of different things. There's no thinking involved in the bacteria whatsoever. Some variable entered the equation that caused the impulse. Whether it be overpopulation, lack of resources, a new unseen stimulus, or a unforeseen genetic mutation. Hundreds upon hundreds of different reasons that can cause it. It was merely a stimulus that caused an impulse. There was no thought involved.

quote:

---

no matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become explanatory or scientifically rigorous. it's just an ad hoc shot in the dark. you aren't addressing the operational aspect of my questions

---

Why does a tree grow? Does it think it through? Does it rationalize it's environment? Will the seed grow by itself? Or was there an outside stimulus that put it on its path? All that is needed is that stimulus and some luck. It happens trillions of times every single day. Murphy's Law.

quote:

---

now that's a scientific response right there. "evolution bro. pass the doob."

---

quote:

---

the behaviors/traits i listed are complex. the fact that they can't communicate at a hominid level suggests that the trait challenges current notions of evolutionary forces.

---

Ummm, no. This nonsense you hear "If humans are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". Sorry, but not every animal would benefit from incredible communication, empathy, and intelligence. Do you really think that would be good for a gazelle or an ant to be able to comprehend their own mortality? Different paths of evolution give other organisms benefits over others. It's like saying evolution doesn't exist because humans can't breath underwater or fly. Or that we're much weaker than other primates. The gorilla is way stronger than we are, and they are able to use that strength effectively to thrive in their own environment. It's about achieving equilibrium in ones environment, not to become more intelligent.

quote:

---

i'm not the only person who has pointed that out in this thread. but you seem to think that blithe, brainless hand waving suffices to dispel these challenges.

---

Because that's only said by people who don't understand evolution at all. It is completely irrelevant that a species doesn't become the ultimate animal and develop traits that you as a human find preferable. It's not the way it works.

quote:

---

aside from the fact that i already mentioned what the abbreviation stands for (universal common descent), now i know i'm dealing with someone who probably isn't equipped to respond to the questions i'm posing. but continue throwing out non-answers

---

After 4 pages of Google searching that doesn't pop up once if its that common of a term. As I thought it's mostly some stupid Bible thumping term. Just say common descent.

quote:

---

i'm asking simple questions that you aren't answering - and then you're acting like there's something wrong with me because i'm pointing out your responses are vapid.

---

I am actually answering them very concisely, which is why I'm only using middle school terms with you. Would you like for me to go to Elementary?

quote:

---

first, it takes basically no intelligence to know that you have the numbers and you can gore/kick the lions to death. it's part of their instinct yet, they don't employ it when they easily could. it would be, as you say, completely advantageous for them to do so and would be an outworking of preservation of the species. second, just because they haven't gone extinct doesn't mean that there isn't a better, easily employed behavior that would yield even greater benefits and would instantiate preservation of the species. again, they aren't doing that. why not?

---

You're thinking that they should think like you as a human. Yes, it does take some intelligence to realize that with the proper strategy you can take out some lions. This is how humans think, not wildebeests.

quote:

---

again, i never said anything of the sort. no wonder your responses are a bunch of rambling nonsense.

---

If I told you that a frog had enough venom to kill 1000 people, you'd think that the frog actively wanted to go out specifically to kill 1000 people: Mass Murdering Frog

Care to share any Monkey News, like a monkey robbing a bank, directing animal porn, or winning the Tour De France?

quote:

---

first, yes. you are highlighting one of the problems with large scale evolution up to ucd, i.e. no direct, repeatable evidence

---

Of course nobody would prefer not to have the entire history is the universe to observe, but just because theories can't answer every historical detail, it doesn't somehow make the broad theories invalid.

There are so many things that we can't explain in every field of science, that we're observing in real time, but that doesn't mean the unanswered negates the answers.

quote:

---

and this is part of the problem. you are parroting the adage that ucd is rock solid, air tight, can't be questioned

---

No, but unless one has an alternative hypothesis that can be tested to the extent of our limitations (i.e., still can't go back in time), then just throwing out random "why did this happen" and criticizing the answers that are supported by what has been tested and observed, as a "non-answers" is just lazy.

I'm comfortable with the idea that there are many things that are incorrect about our conclusions of the historical records, not just biological records. But that is a far cry from somehow invalidating the general theory of that record.

quote:

---

Would it was "disadvantageous" be a more suitable answer?

---

it being advantageous or not is not the issue because that is downstream. the question posed is upstream of that. what caused the first case of predation? how did an organism have anatomical ability to do so? why did gender develop? how did the anatomical aspects of gender just happen to be present when one organism tried to mate with another? how do all the cases of instinctive behavior occur when they are so obviously complex and in some cases unintuitive for animals that don't have higher reasoning?

i am not questioning evolution. i am question certain purported mechanisms of evolution. huge difference.