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

[FearGod]

The fact of evolution has nothing to do with God. Many theists also accept evolution.

i know that many theists believe on evolution but not separated from god.

Here is another study says we have been created in the outerspace

WE ARE STAR PEOPLE: Scientific proof we were created by aliens

 

[camanintx]

Again you have difficulties to understand what i am saying but it is better then to copy and paste the same words from an article by Ker Than.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago

Reference : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

I see you've figured out the "what" of evolution. Now let's see if you can understand the "how" of evolution.

 

[atanu]

god's effect is every where,but you can easily prove that god doesn't exist.
1 - create any living organism out of nonliving matter.
--

I did, twice, about 15 years ago.

Possibly these two views represent what they call Yang and Yin. I suppose, an inevitable part of phenomenal existence.

But can anyone equate one's children to inert material or attribute their origin to inert materials? I think looking into smiling eyes of children may be revealing to many who are of open minds.

 

[chinu]

Don't act so innocent, while farting silently while apparently sitting quietly.

You mean chickens are hiding farts ?

 

[johnhanks]

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

Does knowledge also acquired by random mutation and natural selection.

I think what he's asking is: where did this instinct come from? How did it develop?

I think those are reasonable questions.

Put that way, indeed they are. Our problem is that FearGod has no interest in reasonable answers.

This is, instead, another example of the tediously familiar 'Gotcha!' ploy used by creationists, that of asking a question which they are convinced evolution cannot answer. Needless to say, when answers are forthcoming they must be strenuously ignored, as FearGod has done with my post 125.

As a corollary to this, it is worth noting that faced with the challenge "Feature X cannot be explained by evolution" all the biologist has to do is show a possible mechanism: "Actually, X could have evolved this way...". If the creationist then responds "You cannot prove it evolved that way!" this is irrelevant: the initial claim of impossibility has been disposed of - as, of course, it has in the present case.

 

[darkendless]

i know that many theists believe on evolution but not separated from god.

Here is another study says we have been created in the outerspace

WE ARE STAR PEOPLE: Scientific proof we were created by aliens

Anyone can google articles with the word science in it. When such science articles start using the word "believe" then we have problem.

What someone believes and what someone can prove are completely different.

 

[averageJOE]

i know that many theists believe on evolution but not separated from god.

Here is another study says we have been created in the outerspace

WE ARE STAR PEOPLE: Scientific proof we were created by aliens

This is not really "scientific proof", more like "some scientists believe..."

 

[FearGod]

This is not really "scientific proof", more like "some scientists believe..."

And who is sure about anything,was you there when human first appeared on earth for you to make any assertion.

 

[WyattDerp]

And who is sure about anything,was you there when human first appeared on earth for you to make any assertion.

what does that have to do with the post you're replying to?

 

[johnhanks]

And who is sure about anything,was you there when human first appeared on earth for you to make any assertion.

Once again - were you? Yet you don't seem shy when it comes to making assertions.

 

[camanintx]

But can anyone equate one's children to inert material or attribute their origin to inert materials? I think looking into smiling eyes of children may be revealing to many who are of open minds.

Why not? Are you saying that the whole cannot be more than the sum of the parts? What I see when I look into my children's eyes is a result of complex patterns formed in the synapses of their brain and chemical reactions in their body. However, that doesn't make it any less special or wonderful to me.

 

[FearGod]

Why not? Are you saying that the whole cannot be more than the sum of the parts? What I see when I look into my children's eyes is a result of complex patterns formed in the synapses of their brain and chemical reactions in their body. However, that doesn't make it any less special or wonderful to me.

What the smile benefits the species ?
Why we need to smile ? how it was evolved ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did i say other than mutations are randomness,but i think you have difficulty to understand what im saying.

You summed up my position as "it is randomness".

i repeated it many times that i understand it and believe it to be rubbish as an explanation to our existance,can't you understand that i am creationist.

Then do not reduce my position to "it is randomness".

Again you have difficulties to understand what i am saying but it is better then to copy and paste the same words from an article by Ker Than.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago

Reference : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

I give up. You don't understand a single thing I've said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. I suppose that this is a discussion on TOE. I do not understand how TOE has ever established the origin of intelligent life.

I didn't say it did. I was responding to FearGod's claim that God is the only explanation for those phenomena.

2. Assuming such to be the case, I asked you to demonstrate the perfect viable origin. You gave me the following.

What on earth do you mean by "perfect viable origin"? Why the prefix of "perfect"? What does the insertion of that word even mean? I've explained my position very clearly: that science has explanations for the origins of these things. I never claimed that they were "perfect", I never claimed that they were "known". I simply said that science has origins for these things that do not require a God. What are you having difficulty understanding, exactly?

When you use words such as asinine to describe views of others, I actually see you gritting teeth, bp shooting up. Cool down.

I call a spade a spade. It's not a display of anger or frustration to call something what it is.

BTW, what is 'natural origin'? How is it different from saying 'God origin'? 'Nature' usually means nature something or someone. Nature has no stand alone locus.

An origin that is natural - i.e, not "super"-natural. A result of chemical and biological processes without inherent supernatural intervention.

You said 'perfectly viable non-God related origin?'. So, demonstrate the perfect explanation of origin of life and intelligence. Do not give hypothesis. And do not claim that TOE is about origin of life.

You're taking my words out of context, putting words in my mouth, and moving goalposts. I never said we KNEW the origin, I said we have VIABLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THEIR ORIGINS that do not require a God - and that's exactly what the hypotheses are. Now you're asking for a "perfect explanation" (again, this is a completely meaningless phrase), and for me to "demonstrate it". You seem extremely confused. I've explained my position very clearly, and twisting my words and making claims about my position are not helping to make you look any more honest. You clearly just over-reacted to something I said which you didn't understand.

 

[Alceste]

What the smile benefits the species ?
Why we need to smile ? how it was evolved ?

All primates and most mammals have developed overt gestures of submission or non-aggression. It helps solidify essential relationships, as we are a social species. The role of smiling being associated with submission is supported by the fact that in our patriarchal society women are always being asked to smile out of the blue, for no reason, and men almost never are.

 

[WyattDerp]

What the smile benefits the species ?
Why we need to smile ? how it was evolved ?

That's an interesting question.

Maybe someone who is actually interested in an answer will ask it some day.

 

[FearGod]

You summed up my position as "it is randomness".


Then do not reduce my position to "it is randomness".




I give up. You don't understand a single thing I've said.

Will you deny that randomness and chances is a part of the evolution process,,in grade 1 language,if there is no random mutations,then there will be no evolution at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Will you deny that randomness and chances is a part of the evolution process,,in grade 1 language,if there is no random mutations,then there will be no evolution at all.

I've already told you, I'm not debating with you anymore. I have been extremely clear in my position, and yet you continue to be utterly and totally ignorant of even the most basic principles of evolution. You don't understand evolution, you don't understand my position, you're incapable of learning anything about the subject and I have no interest in indulging your self-enforced ignorance any further.

 

[FearGod]

All primates and most mammals have developed overt gestures of submission or non-aggression. It helps solidify essential relationships, as we are a social species. The role of smiling being associated with submission is supported by the fact that in our patriarchal society women are always being asked to smile out of the blue, for no reason, and men almost never are.

Would you please rephrase your statement ?

Does smiling help in the survival and reproduction of the species ?

 

[FearGod]

I've already told you, I'm not debating with you anymore. I have been extremely clear in my position, and yet you continue to be utterly and totally ignorant of even the most basic principles of evolution. You don't understand evolution, you don't understand my position, you're incapable of learning anything about the subject and I have no interest in indulging your self-enforced ignorance any further.

Yes,maybe i aint able to understand because informations are entering my system in randomness,so i have to start from the basics and then building up on it.

Selecting informations from randomness won't help me,so i have to choose where i have to start from.:yes:

Thank you for helping me to realize how randomness is nonsense even in the attempt to understand one subject.