Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sculptor1]

The statement seems irrelevant.

Exactly like all your statements in reply to my scientific and philosophical proofs.

You are in a state of ignorance concerning the work of evolution I know this for two reasons.
One is that You have not presented anything of substance.
And two you avoided my question. I shall repeat it.

Let me suggest you look into the "design" of he Larygeal nerve.
This nerve which operates the Larynx.
In mammals, amphibians, and birds this passes under the aortic arch, to and from the larynx and the brain. This is somewhat inconvenient , and can lead to serious neuropathy.
In fish this aortic arch is associated with the gills to which the larynx's developemtn owes its origin.
This is all fine for fish, but as evolution carried on and necks got longer this became increasingly ridicuous.
Horse, in particular can get equine recurrent laryngeal neuropathy.
The anials with the longest neck such as giraffes the nerve is over 4 metres long traveling from the brain in to the chest and right back up to the neck.
No intelligence designed this.
How do you account for it.???

[Lagayscienza]

Denial of evolution is like denying that the earth is spherical. The evidence for the fact of evolution is overwhelming. We can watch it happening in real time. Those who deny evolution do so because they do not like it and not because it is not true.

[chewybrian]

... more akin to last-Tuesdayism, a view that cannot be falsified.

Can Darwinian view of Evolution be falsified, pal ?

Has there even been one scientific attempt to falsify this view ?

Of course there have been attempts. Some are (necessarily) on a small scale, with bacteria or fruit flies, such that many generations can practically be observed. Larger studies tend to be a bit removed, as we look at fossils and compare them to their living descendants.

The status of natural selection is now secure, reflecting decades of detailed empirical work. But the study of natural selection is by no means complete.

^This is from Scientific American, "Testing Natural Selection with Genetics", but I can't link on this site. Their bottom line conclusion was that natural selection accounts for something like 20% of change over time, while the remaining 80% or so is the effect of 'genetic drift', where random mutations do not have a material effect on survivability, so they can carry on while not bringing about either extinction or survival.

If you doubt Darwinian evolution, it should be a simple thing to falsify it. If I built terrariums, filled them with various species of plants and animals and created and maintained different environments within them, do you doubt that those best suited to particular environments would survive, and those not suited would die off? Would cacti and polar bears thrive in the swamp? How about moss or gators in the desert?

So, do you doubt natural selection or do you contend that genetic mutation doesn't happen, or is there some other aspect to Darwinism that I am missing? It seems that you are swimming against the tide of commonly accepted scientific belief, so the burden should be on you to show why and how.

...there is no point in falsifying an obviously false view!

Simply stating that the conclusion you don't like is obviously false doesn't seem scientific or philosophical. Surely you can do better (?).

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Denial of evolution is like denying that the earth is spherical.

In your humble opinion only.

In my opinion, Darwinian evolution is a Flat-Earth Religion.

So, we agree to respectfully disagree,
and that's the end of our story here, I am afraid.

If you want to have a proper philosophical discussion, then I invite you
to explore a related aspect of non-Darwinian evolution of Life :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

It seems that you are swimming against the tide of commonly accepted
scientific belief, so the burden should be on you to show why and how.

There is no point in debating commonly accepted scientific beliefs.

You simply deeply believe in Darwinian Random Creation Myth,
and no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind.
And you are not going to change my mind either,
because I know more than enough.

Look, Brian, this is not my intention to keep pointlessly
arguing with you, nor to prove anything to you,
if you are in Love with Darwinian Random Creation Myth.
I want you to be happy, Brian.

I am not here to convince you otherwise, my friend.
I was not born yesterday, and I have seen more than enough
of such pseudo-debates with people like you (no offence).
They all eventually end up with ad hominems.

So, Brian, we agree to respectfully disagree,
and that's the end of our story here, I am afraid.

If you want to have a proper philosophical discussion, then I invite you
to explore a related aspect of non-Darwinian evolution of Life :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

You have avoided few of my questions!

And you have completely ignored all my philosophical argumentation.

You simply deeply believe in the Darwinian Random Creation Myth,
and no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind.
And you are not going to change my mind either,
because I know more than enough.

Look, Sculptor, this is not my intention to keep pointlessly
arguing with you, nor to prove anything to you,
when you are blindly in Love with the Darwinian Random Creation Myth.
I want you to be happy, Sculptor.

I am not here to convince you otherwise, my friend.
I was not born yesterday, and I have seen more than enough
of such pseudo-debates with people like you (no offence).
They all eventually end up with ad hominems.

So, Sculptor, we agree to respectfully disagree,
and that's the end of our story here, I am afraid.

If you want to have a proper philosophical discussion, then I invite you
to explore a related aspect of non-Darwinian evolution of Life :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

OK, you've identified a fellow science denier.

That's pretty easy to do.

And you have identified a huge congregation of obedient "sheep"
in the Church of Darwinian Random Creation Myth,
which first have democratically voted this Random Creation Myth
into an atheistic Bible, and now are witch-hunting for heretics
to burn them at the virtual stake at every on-line discussion forum on the internet.

I am sorry, but that's a no-brainer, pal.

You simply deeply believe in the Darwinian Random Creation Myth,
and no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind.
And you are not going to change my mind either,
because I know more than enough.

Look, Halc, this is not my intention to keep pointlessly
arguing with you, nor to prove anything to you,
when you are blindly in Love with the Darwinian Random Creation Myth.
I want you to be happy, Halc.

I am not here to convince you otherwise, my friend.
I was not born yesterday, and I have seen more than enough
of such pseudo-debates with people like you (no offence).
They all eventually end up with ad hominems.

So, Halc, we agree to respectfully disagree,
and that's the end of our story here, I am afraid.

If you want to have a proper philosophical discussion, then I invite you
to explore a related aspect of non-Darwinian evolution of Life :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193

[Sculptor1]

You have avoided few of my questions!

And you have completely ignored all my philosophical argumentation.

ID is philosophically and epistomologically bankrupt.

There are too many exampled of stupid design as to make the intelligence of a creator about it good as a moron.
ID is refuted by one such example, which you ignored.

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

Tell me why this nerve is so long!

[Lagayscienza]

And tell me why in male Humans the urinary and reproductive tracts share plumbing. I mean, it was such a dumb idea. Like so many men my age, I've had to have a transurethral resection of the prostate so I can pee - a surgical procedure that would have been quite unnecessary had your intelligent designer had any sense. Tell me why/how one who is omniscient, could get basic plumbing so wrong. A first year apprentice plumber could have foreseen it would cause problems. All the omniscient one had to do was not run the urethra through the prostate. So simple. And yet...

And there has been no answer to the question posed about how it is that we can see evolution happening in real time as bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics.

As Dobzhansky said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". The evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming. But the wacky ID crowd don't want it to be true. That's tough for them. They lost this argument long ago.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

ID is philosophically and epistomologically bankrupt.

Really ?

Can you prove it ?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Tell me why this nerve is so long!

My natural brain is not intelligent enough for me to answer all your questions
pertaining to dumb design flaws you mentioned, and I blame
the random and blind Darwinian evolution for it !!!

Having said that, however, expert scientists calculated it mathematically
that all these dumb design flaws are the direct result of
the random quantum fluctuations at the very moment of Big Bang.

You can't possibly rationally and scientifically expect that
such a natural explosion of literally cosmic proportions (Big Bang)
could go off without a single little hitch, or two, can you, Sculptor ?


" Tell me why this nerve is so long! "

Sculptor, now I recall that I have seen the answer to your above question.
You can read it here:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193&p=451502#p451502

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming!

Yes, I feel completely overwhelmed by the depth
and breadth of your scientific knowledge, Lagayscienza.

Would you be willing to kindly answer my two questions
at the bottom of the following post, please ?

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193&p=451502#p451502

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

And tell me why in male Humans the urinary and reproductive tracts share plumbing. I mean, it was such a dumb idea.

Well, from your limited and subjective point of view,
it might seem dumb to you. OK, no problem here.

However, the Almighty Creator God Yahweh who created Adam and Eve, works in mysterious ways as it has been widely acknowledged in Catholic Theology at the Vatican for over 1700 years.

Vatican Theologians, upon careful and detailed in-depth analysis of the entire Old Testament, discovered that the reason why urinary and reproductive tracts share plumbing, was just a one little of Almighty God Yahweh's punishments of Adam and Eve for their Original Sin.

Lagayscienza, you may keep denying it as much as you want,
but the simple fact is that you are a dirty sinner, too.

So, be humble and grateful to your divine Almighty Creator
for giving you even this dumb little penis to play with,
while you watch porn on-line, pal.

Lagayscienza, let's praise our supernatural Almighty Lord, Creator God Yahweh !!!

AMEN, brother.

God bless you, Lagayscienza.

P. s.

It was our supernatural Almighty Lord, Creator God Yahweh,
who performed the Miracle of Abiogenesis,
without so little as batting an eyelash :

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193&p=451493#p451493

[LuckyR]

And tell me why in male Humans the urinary and reproductive tracts share plumbing. I mean, it was such a dumb idea.

Well, from your limited and subjective point of view,
it might seem dumb to you. OK, no problem here.

However, the Almighty Creator God Yahweh who created Adam and Eve, works in mysterious ways as it has been widely acknowledged in Catholic Theology at the Vatican for over 1700 years.

Vatican Theologians, upon careful and detailed in-depth analysis of the entire Old Testament, discovered that the reason why urinary and reproductive tracts share plumbing, was just a one little of Almighty God Yahweh's punishments of Adam and Eve for their Original Sin.

Ah yes, the ol' "mysterious ways" smokescreen. I suppose that sort of thing works for True Believers, but it is a somewhere between sad and pathetic rationalization for critical minds.

Mysterious Ways is another way of saying: "you're right, it makes no logical sense to us either, so let's relabel it's description".

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Like so many men my age, I've had to have a transurethral resection
of the prostate so I can pee - a surgical procedure that would have been
completely unnecessary had your intelligent designer had any sense.

You have your random Darwinian evolution to blame it on, pal.

And I praise my holy Maker, my supernatural divine Almighty Lord, the only true Creator God Yahweh, for giving me my healthy, strong, noticeably above average in size penis with large balls, to enjoy on demand!

AMEN : viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19193&p=451493#p451493