How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[Alceste]

God doesn't whisper to each and every chicken all around the world but they are programmed to do so except if you want to believe that happened by an accident and because it worked then the offsprings were having it.

That can't be done without a decision maker,that can't be done without an intelligent entity,don't believe on god thats up to you,but your logic about randomness and chances without a conscious planner and designer doesn't make sense at all,for the creationists at least and even for some atheists.

I feel like I need to make you write "natural selection is not random" on the blackboard a hundred and fifty times.

 

[LuisDantas]

God doesn't whisper to each and every chicken all around the world but they are programmed to do so except if you want to believe that happened by an accident and because it worked then the offsprings were having it.

Yes, it does indeed seem to have happened by luck of the draw. Of course, such luck was then filtered by the cold fact that being protective of one's eggs leads to better odds of survival into the next generation. So while the tendency for that specific behavior is in itself random, the natural selection of it isn't; it is instead directed by the environment.

That can't be done without a decision maker,

In the sense that something must decide that a certain behavior or attribute leads to better odds of generating viable offspring, you are right.

However, it does not necessarily follow that such a decision maker must have a purpose. It can be the environment itself - and far as we can truly tell, the environment has indeed been enough.

that can't be done without an intelligent entity,

I beg to differ. It doesn't take an intelligent entity to make eggs that are defended by the presence of adults more likely to survive and hatch than unprotected ones. Or, at least, I don't see why such an intelligent entity would be needed.

don't believe on god thats up to you,but your logic about randomness and chances without a conscious planner and designer doesn't make sense at all,for the creationists at least and even for some atheists.

That is probably true to some extent, although it seems to me that it is misleading to emphasize the hypothetical existence of some (probably few) atheists who don't understand or don't accept natural selection over the well-documented and quite reasonable existence of theists that do understand and accept natural selection and biological evolution (as well they should).


Also, the belief that a conscious planner is necessary is demonstrably inaccurate. Granted, it will never be possible to show that there is no such planner. But the available data does not really point towards its existence.

 

[FearGod]

It's been explained how it works, NUMEROUS TIMES, and you still don't understand or don't care to. Why do you even try to start these discussions if you can't discuss, you can only throw down everyones opinion but your own? You deny evolution vehemently even when the evidence is overwhelming and has been shared with you dozens of times, only because some website about Islam told you to. I dare you to actually read up on evolution and try your best to understand whats being told, so you don't keep making the same mistake over and over.

it has been explained how it works.

What the problem if i asked some questions and oppose your answers if it didn't make sense to me.

i ain't against evolution,but i am against evolution without a planner and designer besides the new evolved creation should be a new separated creation from the previous one.

When the first Tv was made,it was huge,very heavy,black and white,bad quality picture,then afterwards we have the better ones which evolved from the previous ones but separated from it,in other words a new design from the previous one,so we got a lighter one,colors,good quality picture and nice slim figure than the previous ugly ones.

 

[secret2]

No matter which thread I look at, FearGod has been doing pretty much the same thing (albeit on different topics):

Form a false dichotomy of
A. A misunderstood caricature, or a straw-man argument of something that almost sounds like evolution; and
B. Invisible pink unicorn

-> Shoot down A

-> Praise the unicorn

 

[chinu]

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on the eggs for fertilizing ?

God taught them.

 

[HonestJoe]

i ain't against evolution,but i am against evolution without a planner and designer

Why? While it's possible there is (or was) some kind of intelligent designer, it is also possible that there isn't. On what basis are you entirely dismissing one of those possibilities?

 

[FearGod]

No matter which thread I look at, FearGod has been doing pretty much the same thing (albeit on different topics):

Form a false dichotomy of
A. A misunderstood caricature, or a straw-man argument of something that almost sounds like evolution; and
B. Invisible pink unicorn

-> Shoot down A

-> Praise the unicorn

Huh,invisible pink unicorn.

A silly comparison between god's existance and the invisible pink unicorn.

Yes its true that we can't see god,but we can see his effect and that is not found in the silly analogy of the invisible pink unicorn and Russell's Teapot and other similar ridiculous ideas.

if i see a book is moving,then i have to fetch for who is moving it,but if i think it moves by itself because i didn't see anyone moving it,then i am similar to the atheist in his ability to think.

What we are fetching is the power of god around us and not his physical body.

Do you think ? of course yes...,but what is the proof,i can't see your thoughts.
But i can see your thoughts from its power and effect,i can't see it,but i realize it.

 

[Alceste]

If the book is falling through the air, Then the reason is gravity. When you understand the principle and mechanism in question, there is no need to develop superstitious notions of cause.

 

[oldbadger]

God taught them.

Hi chinu!

God taught them?
OK..... so why didn't God teach our Dolly-Duck? She usually lays eggs just anywhere and wanders off, or lays ten as a clutch, sits them for a couple of weeks and then wanders off, just before they could have hatched.

Got it! Dolly is an atheist!

 

[FearGod]

If the book is falling through the air, Then the reason is gravity. When you understand the principle and mechanism in question, there is no need to develop superstitious notions of cause.

i said moving and not falling down.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Huh,invisible pink unicorn.

A silly comparison between god's existance and the invisible pink unicorn.

Yes its true that we can't see god,but we can see his effect and that is not found in the silly analogy of the invisible pink unicorn and Russell's Teapot and other similar ridiculous ideas.

Okay then. Please give one example of an effect and how you can demonstrate that the cause of that effect is God.

 

[FearGod]

Okay then. Please give one example of an effect and how you can demonstrate that the cause of that effect is God.

All the things which you think of it happening without the need of God.

 

[atanu]

----- Evolution is not purposeful. Nothing 'wanted to survive', nothing 'made plans'.
So you're right - no creature had an insight. The prevailing conditions selected those with existing behaviors which worked.

Imagine the bird only laid down next to the egg, and only for part of the time. If even some of the body heat was transfered, or if only some protection was provided against cold, that would create some survival advantage. Then the next generations would contain a higher percentage of birds sitting near their eggs. And if some of these birds laid closer than others, and/or for longer periods of time then that would be selected for. And so on until we get what is a quite specific brooding behaviour.

FearGod. you have fallen into several common misconceptions.
1. They don't KNOW it. It is instinct. How did you KNOW to walk on your feet, rather than on your hands? How did You KNOW to inhale and exhale?
These are all instincts. If your ancient, ancient, ancient ancestors had not done it, then they would not have survived to eventually have you as a descendent.

Do all of you mean to say 'nothing wanted to survive'? And nothing wanted to get better and better in order to beat the **** out of others?

 

[dust1n]

Yes its true that we can't see god,but we can see his effect and that is not found in the silly analogy of the invisible pink unicorn and Russell's Teapot and other similar ridiculous ideas.

I can see the effects of invisible pink unicorns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All the things which you think of it happening without the need of God.

And how can you demonstrate that they are the result of God?

 

[Riverwolf]

i ain't against evolution,but i am against evolution without a planner and designer besides the new evolved creation should be a new separated creation from the previous one.

Every single individual is already a "new separated creation." Beyond that, all forms of life are just individuals trying to survive via the various successful survival strategies that have evolved over the years.

The line between different species isn't as clear as most people seem to think it is.

 

[Alceste]

i said moving and not falling down.

Perhaps flying over your head would have been a more appropriate choice.

Don't use metaphors if you're not prepared for others to build on them.

 

[Alceste]

All the things which you think of it happening without the need of God.

How about gravity?

 

[FearGod]

And how can you demonstrate that they are the result of God?

For me i have evidences from the quran,but that won't work with you.

 

[fantome profane]

Do all of you mean to say 'nothing wanted to survive'?

Good question. It is difficult to say what a bird, especially an ancient bird, would "want". But I do think the bird does want to protect and care for its offspring. This might not have been what initially motivated the behaviour we are talking about.

But it doesn't matter, not from an evolutionary perspective. Wanting to protect and care for their offspring is something that is encoded in the genes. So birds that want to protect their offspring will have more offspring. Not only that, but since it is a genetic trait, they will have offspring that will in turn want to protect their offspring.

So it doesn't matter if the bird is sitting on the egg because it wants to protect their offspring, or if then bird is sitting on the egg because it likes sitting on eggs. Either way it is genetically coded behaviour and can be naturally selected.