OBSTACLES IN EVOLUTION PT. 5
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Do you also suppose that the percentage of murders someone committed previously, can tell us if they murdered someone today?
This is so funny, John. How would you describe the response you’ve just made?
A demonstration of why your statement was flawed?
"You asked questions aimed at me rather than the OP. Why shouldn't I assume you are fishing for ad hominems"
Hahahahaha, irony overload...I can hope you are being deliberately ironic, otherwise the hilarity of that post is tinged with sadness for you.
1. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
2. If evolution were falsified tomorrow I would remain an atheist.
3. If evolution were falsified tomorrow creationism would remain superstitious flimflam.
4. Evolution is a scientific fact, as surely as scientific facts described by other scientific theories like gravity, relativity, atomic theory, Information theory, Game theory, Oxygen theory of combustion, Plate tectonics, etc etc etc...
5. Your constant attempts to limit all discussion to things you think support your personal beliefs is hilarious, we're not playing though.
" I'm skeptical of evolution, because there are functional obstacles in its narrative that don't seem to be accounted for by the theory."
Except there are no "functional obstacles in its narrative" and the theory that explains the fact of evolution has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny for over 150+ years, it remains a scientific fact. You're also lying about your motives as you are sceptical of evolution because you favour a creationist myth based on an archaic superstition, for which there isn't a shred of demonstrable evidence.
Evolution could be falsified tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that creationism is unevidenced superstitious bunk. So I'd still be an atheist. I accept evolution is a scientific fact, just as I accept scientific theories of relativity and gravity explain scientific facts, only you are cherry picking which scientific facts you want to accept, rejecting those that dismantle your religious beliefs about creationism.
" don't seem to be accounted for by the theory."
You don't have a clue what the theory explains, and what it does not, and you've used quite a few creationist cliches that are well known to have been discredited, like irreducible complexity for example which has been thoroughly debunked.
"Its about apparent obstacles and conflicts in the narrative. "
No it isn't, they're not apparent to science at all, only to creatards who like to pretend they're absurd superstitious lies and propaganda have some gravitas.
Try this, the pinnacle of creatard argument...and fucking hilarious to boot.
Breezy "Is the reason why you're atheist scientific in any way?"
Is the reason you don't believe in fairies, unicorns, Zeus or leprechauns scientific? Which scientific texts can you cite for this disbelief please?
" Fossils records have shown that life existed for about 3,800 million years, but complex life emerged only about 600 million years. Over time, life forms change. Their fossil record allows geologists to date and compare rocks across geological time. For example, dinosaur fossils are only found during the Mesozoic era some 245 to 65 million years ago.
The following table shows the geologic time scale."
This seems to justify my claim. You had to dig up random and obscure sentences in random and obscure articles. Couldn't you have linked an encyclopedia entry instead? The way I can for the Mesozoic Era: https://www.britannica.com/science/Mesozoic-Era
We are classified as metazoans, if there was an official thing called the metazoan era then we are living in it now. Both of your links use metazoan era, not as an actual thing, but as a way of speaking. Like speaking about the Wi-Fi era, despite there being no such thing as the Wi-Fi Era. You can tell this is so when the article calls it the Fungi-Metazoan era and then the Fungi-Metazoan period later on. It can't be both, eras are divided into periods. The only time they are synonymous is when speaking casually.
Perhaps this is a petty observation. But there's something to be said about metazoan era not being capitalized in your links. In contrast, you'll find that Mesozoic Era is capitalized whenever mentioned.
There is something to be said about the fact it was capitalized and your claiming it wasn't.
Despite your claims; the term is used in the technical journals of the field.
Hilarious. Your first link says "metazoan era" completely undercapitalized. The second link writes "Fungi-Metazoan era" not "Fungi-Metazoan Era."
Ahh a technical journal, I guess that solves everything. Here's another technical journal, its titled "Characterization of Death in Neonatal Encephalopathy in the Hypothermia Era" Perhaps you should tell it to the world, that we're living the Hypothermia Era.
Or perhaps this one "This study aimed to identify studies on online health service use by people with limited health literacy, as the findings could provide insights into how health literacy has been, and should be, addressed in the eHealth era." Oh the famous eHealth era, of course, those were the days. Clearly this isn't just casual speech, right? Clearly there's an era for everything, and we would all be ignorant to not be aware of all these eras.
Yeah, more or less! An era is a span of time with certain attributes; can be applied to all kinds of things.
Exactly like adjectives, but not like a proper noun.
Even if I was to accept that ridiculous notion that there is a metazoan era but not a Metazoan Era; you still have an inconsistency: remember you said:
The words exist if that's what you mean. You can put them together if you feel inclined to. But there's no era known as the metazoan era. In contrast, there is an era known as the Mesozoic Era.
It is true that sensing he environment is important for survival. All organisms can sense the environment in one way or another. Plants, without a nerve system, ca react to the environment. Even inorganic molecules or even atoms can "sense" the environment, as they increase they movements or increase their reaction speed when temperature increases. These simple physico-chemical reactions are the basis of the senses in living organisms. In viruses, they can detect when they are close to a receptive area of a cell through simple electro-chemical reactions. A protein with a certain electric charge and an appropriate shape can then lock into another in the surface of the cell and allow the membrane to open up an accept the virus DNA. Vitus are the most abundant organic semi-living form and are extremely successful. Semi-living because when not inside a cell they are just a inert chemical complex. From these elementary reactions all senses came. I do no see what is the problem. Matter itself react to the environment.Organism just used these properties to improve their chances for survival.
There's a bit of a difference between sensing your environment and reacting to it. If you cut me with a knife and I bleed, that's me reacting with my environment, but if I've lost sensation on that limb, I won't sense the cut or the bleeding. Atoms don't sense their environment, they react to it. Glass doesn't sense the environment when I shatter it with a hammer, it reacts with it. Hydrogen doesn't sense the environment when I mix it with Hydroxide, it reacts with it.
You can't reduce things down to atoms, claim atoms technically sense the environment, and then hope to change the problems that emerge with higher complexity. If that were true you just fixed diabetic neuropathy. All a diabetic needs to do is remember they are made of atoms that can sense the environment, and no longer will they suffer mysterious bruises and cuts.
Its poetic, but nothing more.
What exactly do you struggle with when it comes to evolution of nerves? You say our ancestors would be in trouble without these sensations, yet you ignore the fact that in order to talk about evolution of nerves we have to go all the way back to metazoa creatures. And yes all might only be looked at from a microscope! If you are going to ignore this then how can you ever expect an honest debate? This is why I feel like you never really studied evolution... you have a very apologetic stance on evolution yet when you explain what you find wrong usually you are messing up simple details.
Do you think evolution is a ladder?
No, I think evolution is like spilled milk, with some species spreading out to the theoretical edge in either direction, others evaporated, and other's stuck near the center of first contact.
Now, I've said before that without these sensations species need some way to compensate. If the way to compensate is to be microscopic, then great. I don't think that's the only way species compensate. Trees don't have nerves, but then again, they don't go anywhere or do anything. But fine, lets go back in time to whatever microscopic species you had in mind. Can you tell me more about it?
“Trees don't have nerves, but then again, they don't go anywhere or do anything.”
Please provide parameters for the ‘anything’ trees don’t do.
You seem to take umbrage when another poster is imprecise with language but do not seem to want the same rules applied to the words and phrases you use.
No? If you pay attention its the other way around. Look at the "era" debate I just had. When BYB first said metazoan era, I understood what he meant. In fact, when I asked him "What are pre-metazoan ancestor?" I wasn't questioning his use of words, I was asking for a name, so I could look up those species and answer his question.
Then Sheldon stepped in, misinterpreting everything as he always does. So I explained it to him: "He's asking about species from which animals evolved, which are presumably microscopic. I don't know what those species are, so I'm asking" But people just want to debate about every word I say. That's why they attacked my statement that there's no such thing as the metazoan era, despite my explanations, so that spun off into a pointless discussion.
I understood what BYB meant, just like I'm sure you understand what I meant.
I am trying to get you to understand... let's use your spilled milk analogy.
When you are asking how can the species survive without these nerve senses, you are looking at this as if our ape like ancestors lost feeling in their legs...(somewhere near the edge of the spilled milk)
I am saying that in order to talk about the evolution of the nervous system you have to go way back to the milk that's next to the rim.
The OP addresses the evolution of the nervous systems in single cell organisms yet you are asserting that your OP finds flaws in species that already had a nervous system.
I agree with you if humans lost all feeling of pain or other that would be detrimental yet we already have a nervous system so... I agree with you that the great ape ancestors would of died off if they didn't sense there surroundings or they couldn't feel pain yet they already had a nervous system, I agree that prehistoric species would have a hard time without a nervous system or some form of senses, yet they already had them... so if you look all the way back to a species with no nervous system, that lacked every form of senses we understand today you would be looking at a species that was pre metazoa!
Right, so this where I asked what those pre-metazoa species were. Sheldon in his attempt to argue every word I said, actually posted a link which mentions the pre-metazoan ancestor is hypothetical, and is called Urmetazoa.
Is that what you had in mind, or just single-celled organisms in general?
I was talking in general terms. I was trying to set a baseline for the argument. If you go back to my first post on your OP the animal I named I believe it's from the sponge family.
Let not get lost in words. These physical and chemical reactions to a changing environment are the basis for the senses. What I am trying that convey here is that even inanimate matter can react (in way 'sense') the environment so as life is made of chemicals that follow physical laws it is intrinsically able to react to the environment. Those chemicals and chain reactions that assure a better response to the environment (from the point of view of the survival of the organism) are selected and passed down into the next generation and wit time more complex better mechanisms to interact with the environment develop. It has nothing to do with curing diabetes. What you are stating here is you do not undestand how organisms got their senses and I explaining you how that happens. Simpley it was already there in the very nature of chemical elements. Viruses react to the environment, "sensing"when they are in conditions adecuate for reprodution, although they do not have sensory organs. Just electrochemistry is enough.
I haven't seen you here before, but good job on addressing the OP. Very few people do that around here.
I don't have a problem with the following things:
1. Chemicals react to the environment.
2. We are made of chemicals.
3. Therefore the chemicals that compose our neurons and receptor cells also react with the environment. Some interactions are directly chemical, such as sodium activating action potentials in your tongue when you eat something salty. Other's are mechanic reactions, such as stretching, or temperature based, or even light reactions, or pressure reactions, bla bla bla.
Without atoms being able to react to things, I agree, we don't have senses, we don't even exist. But also take into account that as atoms combine into molecules and more complex things, they react differently with the environment. Sodium reacts explosively in water, but if sodium is bonded to chlorine, then there's no reaction in water.
Once atoms build up into a cell, its essentially blind to the world, and faces new challenges. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to make sure you understand there's a transition there, and that transition doesn't guarantee anything. A dead frog and a living frogs are both made out of the same atoms, but one can hear sounds, feel heat, see colors, and other cannot.
If we're agreed on that I do have some follow up questions.