what i object to is that ucd is automatically assumed as the logical outworking of evolution despite the huge challenges that have been presented not just by me but, but plenty of other thinkers. the data is not really in question. the conclusion most certainly is. ucd is completely speculative and does not necessarily follow simplicitur. some of the most quintessential aspects of ucd are actually counterintuitive with evolutionary forces, some of which i have pointed out.

quote:
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 couldn't disagree more in keeping with the spirit of the scientific method. first, a theory is not given the benefit of the doubt merely because it has no competitors. that is a HUGE problem with our current cultural stance on ucd. it has become the default through smuggled in authority. second, asking the epistemological questions is what the scientific method and critical thinking are all about. third, these issues i have raised are not part of the set of "tested and observed" data.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 3/14/17 at 7:57 pm to Bmath

quote:
I suspect that this happened very early on

i agree.

quote:
There are predatory bacteria whose whole life cycle is dependent upon reproducing inside other bacterial cells.

that's the question i'm asking - how did they get that way. from everything we know, the first organisms had no need for this.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by OMLandshark

Member since Apr 2009

120445 posts

Posted on 3/14/17 at 8:00 pm to bfniii

I'm done arguing with you. Stimuluses and variables are perfectly sound arguments, but you don't seem to think so. It's above your comprehension, you don't understand Murphy's Law, and despite saying you don't, you keep on thinking every other species thinks as you do specifically,

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You don't listen to any of our points, just saying I'm too vague by saying that there are multiple possibilities. But you think some guy on a hill before science was even a subject had all the answers and that we shouldn't question it. It's the mindset of the people that destroyed Galileo.

I do just want address one of your points before leaving though:

quote:

quote:
All that is needed is that stimulus and some luck
you are really, really super gullible if you believe that.

Just to drive the point home that you don't think anything through, let's go through the levels of probability that you personally are alive. You in all of your flawed glory. Part of you was one of trillions of sperm that your father created and the other part is one of hundreds of eggs your mother created. Now think about the orgasm. What if it took another minute or your father aimed differently. What if they were using protection and the condom just happened to break. What if another sperm was faster than the one that initially conceived you?

Now let's put these scenarios throughout the history of life. If Hitler rose to power, you and your parents (depending on their age of course) would never exist. If your grandfather was storming the beaches on D-Day and a bullet grazes his ear, what if he was 2 inches to the left or the German who shot at him had better aim? He's dead, and you're never born. And going back further, what if the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was a bit off the mark? Do you think mammals would have risen in the way they did? What if the last common ancestor for all vertebrates was eaten before it could breed? Think things would be the same?

It's Murphy's Law and the Butterfly Effect. Citing stimuluses, variables, and mutations is perfectly acceptable reasoning for how it happened. It happens trillions of times a day to trillions of organisms and objects in the cosmos. There are hundreds of thousands of (and more likely infinite) possibilities that could have happened. You are a product of incredible stimuluses, variables, mutations, actions, and maybe most importantly luck. How am I gullible for believing in that?

This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 8:20 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by OMLandshark

Member since Apr 2009

120445 posts

Posted on 3/14/17 at 8:26 pm to Bmath

quote:
I suspect that this happened very early on. In bacteria, they simply are feeding off of nutrient sources. This often includes vitamins and other forms of nutrients secreted by neighboring microbes. These organisms often don't even possess the genes to produce these biotic compounds on their own, and are completely dependent upon others.

There are predatory bacteria whose whole life cycle is dependent upon reproducing inside other bacterial cells.

Yeah, this is how I've thought of it. It's not like a bacteria would think "gross, in not eating parts of my own kind, I would rather starve to death." It just occurred naturally through thousands of different possible scenarios. It just happened.

He's requesting that we go back 2 billion years ago, find the exact spot and time it happened, and record it. That's the only way we can talk with these clowns is that we are required to document every single generation of every single organism that has ever lived, otherwise we get that retarded "missing link argument".

If there are possibilities on what happened, then they think they won the argument. It's what we call the "God of the Gaps". It's where Issac Newton fell short on some of his theories, and gave up finding some of the actual answers and just attributed it to God, despite the fact that we know why now. And the God of the Gaps only gets smaller and more irrelevant by the day.

This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 8:30 pm

Page 1 2 3 4 5