Uyi Iredia:

Arrogant $tupidity. A prominent mark of logicboyism. You will never find consciousness any more than Carl Sagan can find the scientific method, logic (which fail WOEFULLY at) or infinity. These are immaterial realities. I have already pre-empted, as other great men, what the whargarbls and logicboys will forever do: point to a feature of the brain and say 'therefore consciousness.'

This is the kind of projection and denial that theism leads to.


I m looking at the evidence/clues to knowledge. Have you seen any scientific study of vonsciousness without the brain? Can consciousness be separated from the brain?


See how silly you are? Facts become arrogance to you ironically when your belief in God rejects the truth

Logicboy03:


This is the kind of projection and denial that theism leads to.


I m looking at the evidence/clues to knowledge. Have you seen any scientific study of vonsciousness without the brain? Can consciousness be separated from the brain?


See how silly you are? Facts become arrogance to you ironically when your belief in God rejects the truth

Is your brain conscious ? Why aren't dead and dismembered brains talking ? Or are you going to say all the tissues composing your brain are your consciousness ? Not to mention your poor memory skills: I recall telling you that humans are contingent on their bodies unlike God. Your materialism blinds you. My dear logicboy remain blinded by your light.

Uyi Iredia:

Is your brain conscious ? Why aren't dead and dismembered brains talking ? Or are you going to say all the tissues composing your brain are your consciousness ? Not to mention your poor memory skills: I recall telling you that humans are contingent on their bodies unlike God. Your materialism blinds you. My dear logicboy remain blinded by your light.

How can a dead brain have consciousness when it is not working? Do you even think about what you write?


The brain works with CNS as a part of it and the body. A dismembered brain will lose consciousness because its system has been destroyed.


Sometimes, I even believe that you are not conscious. You must be a puppet in the hands of the spirit of s.tupidity

Deep Sight:

Elementary.



You still have not pointed at the impetus for splits. Not at all. You have only said that such splits occur, fine. I asked you why on earth such a split would occur at all. What drives this. Rushing out now, but I repeat the question: what inherent impetus does a unicellular organism have for the survival of its species, the propagation of its genes? What interest? What drive? From where? For what? What should cause it to engage in the act of reproduction at all?

What type of question is this? Is it rhetorical? If I don't have the answer, does it mean that god did it?

Anyway the answer to your question is, as I told you before, the answer to the question if you replace unicellular with man. Just in case you don't understand. This is the question: what inherent impetus does a human being have for the survival of its species, the propagation of its genes? What interest? What drive? From where? For what? What should cause it to engage in the act of reproduction at all?

You get it? Exactly the same answer. Ball is in your court.

davidylan:

which again begs the question... you claimed deepsight's post was replete with basic errors WITHOUT POINTING OUT A SINGLE ONE. You had a second chance to point out these "errors" and all you could come up with was a vacuous repetition of an empty claim?

To say deepsight's post did not "address" alfa seltzer's ignorant claim is baffling considering deepsight's post is a clear explanation as to why that POV is baseless.

WTF do you do this?

wiegraf:

But, but, this still reeks of desperation, albeit of a slightly different variety. As I can't help but notice that you still did not address the post. Rather, you seem to be looking for an excuse to run away, see.

What post could I have been speaking of? Which post was @ds responding to?

wiegraf:

And this reeks of desperation. So many basic mistakes..
Address the sickle cell scenario then

Which post by @alfa mentions sickle cell? Did you even fucking stop to comprehend anything at all??

Next we know, a reply from you projecting, talking about how atheists are 'fuming at the mouth' whenever we see xtianity and become unreasonable (and xtianity in particular, not even religion in general, the arrogance, etc etc)

Now, do you want me to repost that post which touches on 'more successful' and death for the 3rd time in ~2 pages before it gets addressed? There's good reason I asked him to address it; it addresses some of the basic errors I speak of.

Frankly, addressing most of said errors properly would require quite a lot, and would also be somewhat redundant.

Considering your expertise, perhaps you can help? Also, I still await your ground breaking paper on how there's no evidence for evolution.

Thank you

Random: I don't think y'all are genuinely concerned with that. Seems this is some (desperate) excuse to buy time. For what? Oho, and that remains baffling, as 'no be by force'. But to claim we're unreasonable is... well..

This whole exercise is some form of the internet version of a filibuster, with 12 mostly useless 'posers' and other oddities flung in, then complaints about how no one has responded to all of them (at times, all at once sef...), while ignoring the responses.

And thank your for pointing out @alfa's post had not been addressed.

.

Interesting

Logicboy03:



How can a dead brain have consciousness when it is not working?

?? ?? ??

What made it to work at the first place ?

Logicboy03:


The brain works with CNS as a part of it and the body.

the brain and CNS are of what material make ?

Logicboy03:


A dismembered brain will lose consciousness because its system has been destroyed.

What about when it lost consciousness with every thing(CNS) intact ?

1. What happened at this point also ?

2. Why is it not working again ?

3. Why did it start working at the first place ?

Chrisbenogor: Chief Justice Chris Bangs the gavel

Order guys Order, we have to get to the root of this argument on this thread

Ok First off thanks to those who have taken the time to answer the initial posers (deepsight, plat) I encourage others who are for either side to streamline this argument discussion as much as possible. I would try my best to arrange the concerns of both sides for the other side to answer. Might I also add that I think when questions are posed they should be answered as directly as possible and instead of "if this is that then why is this that" if you know what I mean.

Back to business.......
On the Against Side:

Could you specify the areas of the theory that you agree with and those you deem to be massive leaps?
Is the theory of Evolution supposed to explain consciousness?
What do you make of the other sides explanation that the miller-urey experiment to them shows that it is plausible life started like that?
When you say a bigger factor, does this mean that the shortfalls of the theory can be explained by one big factor i.e(God did it)?

Every year a student you.

When will you acquire knowledge and start passing it out yourself on this forum ? Dont you have the capacity to learn ?

Is reading and passing out knowledge, thinking as in this above your capacity ?

Please, do justice to this issues, are you not a human being ?

truthislight:

Every year a student you.

When will you acquire knowledge and start passing it out yourself on this forum ? Dont you have the capacity to learn ?

Is reading and passing out knowledge, thinking as in this above your capacity ?

Please, do justice to this issues, are you not a human being ?

LOL LOL
Nobody knows everything bros, I am pretty sure there's aspects of life I know that you have no knowledge about and vice versa as well. People read these threads like me without commenting much and it gets confusing hence my clarification questions. I try from time to time to educate myself on the topic currently I am reading the selfish gene by richard dawkins and I always want a balanced view, I want to know when what I read crosses from fact to conjecture, that being said however some of us are really really busy and only have the time to post once in a while.
Biology has never been my strongest suit, theres a phd holder here, if I do not know I would say.
If however you want some schooling in some really cool engineering stuff hola I would be happy to fill your tiny slate with that knowledge........ok am done being nice BACK THE FUXKCK OFF!

Chrisbenogor:

LOL LOL
Nobody knows everything bros, I am pretty sure there's aspects of life I know that you have no knowledge about and vice versa as well. People read these threads like me without commenting much and it gets confusing hence my clarification questions. I try from time to time to educate myself on the topic currently I am reading the selfish gene by richard dawkins and I always want a balanced view, I want to know when what I read crosses from fact to conjecture, that being said however some of us are really really busy and only have the time to post once in a while.
Biology has never been my strongest suit, theres a phd holder here and in my training as an engineer I do not assume, if I do not know I would say.
If however you want some schooling in some really cool engineering stuff hola I would be happy to fill your tiny slate with that knowledge........ok am done being nice BACK THE FUXKCK OFF!

If Engineering comes you will dig up another excuse.

Engineering training is geared toward endowing one with critical thinking skills, but did not seem to have endowed you in particular with it.

Rather, it turned you to a jounalist ironically.

@Deep sight is a lawyer they say, and not a biologist. Go figure out.

Smh.

Chrisbenogor:

LOL LOL
Nobody knows everything bros, I am pretty sure there's aspects of life I know that you have no knowledge about and vice versa as well. People read these threads like me without commenting much and it gets confusing hence my clarification questions. I try from time to time to educate myself on the topic currently I am reading the selfish gene by richard dawkins and I always want a balanced view, I want to know when what I read crosses from fact to conjecture, that being said however some of us are really really busy and only have the time to post once in a while.
Biology has never been my strongest suit, theres a phd holder here, if I do not know I would say.
If however you want some schooling in some really cool engineering stuff hola I would be happy to fill your tiny slate with that knowledge........ok am done being nice BACK THE FUXKCK OFF!

If you are an engineer, you could contribute on the big bang side of the discussion. It is more physics than biology.

wiegraf:

WTF do you do this?



What post could I have been speaking of? Which post was @ds responding to?



Which post by @alfa mentions sickle cell? Did you even fucking stop to comprehend anything at all??

Next we know, a reply from you projecting, talking about how atheists are 'fuming at the mouth' whenever we see xtianity and become unreasonable (and xtianity in particular, not even religion in general, the arrogance, etc etc)

Now, do you want me to repost that post which touches on 'more successful' and death for the 3rd time in ~2 pages before it gets addressed? There's good reason I asked him to address it; it addresses some of the basic errors I speak of.

Frankly, addressing most of said errors properly would require quite a lot, and would also be somewhat redundant.

Considering your expertise, perhaps you can help? Also, I still await your ground breaking paper on how there's no evidence for evolution.

Thank you

Random: I don't think y'all are genuinely concerned with that. Seems this is some (desperate) excuse to buy time. For what? Oho, and that remains baffling, as 'no be by force'. But to claim we're unreasonable is... well..

This whole exercise is some form of the internet version of a filibuster, with 12 mostly useless 'posers' and other oddities flung in, then complaints about how no one has responded to all of them (at times, all at once sef...), while ignoring the responses.

And thank your for pointing out @alfa's post had not been addressed.

Filibuster is the perfect word .
An ill-motivated filibuster against the scientific theory of evolution.

truthislight:

If Engineering comes you will dig up another excuse.

Engineering training is geared toward endowing one with critical thinking skills, but did not seem to have endowed you in particular with it.

Rather, it turned you to a jounalist ironically.

@Deep sight is a lawyer they say, and not a biologist. Go figure out.

Smh.

Ok this is an attempt to drag individuals into this discussion and I would not give you the satisfaction.Being a journalist is not bad after all is it . I can already see from you that being a self accomplished prophet of doom pastor does not mean one needs to be embellished with any particular critical thinking skills.

Alfa Seltzer:

If you are an engineer, you could contribute on the big bang side of the discussion. It is more physics than biology.

Even people wey propound theory are having a hard time proving it, na me you wan give bald head for my young age?

To be brutally honest, I find the big bang very boring. I have tried and tried and tried to sit still and read I never get past a few paragraphs. I think someone here (plat) said its hard for people to go through the detailed science of it all well maybe he is right.
Is it now a crime that I am not an expert in evolutionary biology

Deep Sight:

5. The faculties observed in an advanced creature such as man far exceed that which would develop based on any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are not faculties for which any evolutionary impetus can be discerned. Man existing in a state of nature has no natural or biological need for such faculties: no need that can be explained with reference to the natural environment and the survivalist pressures it places on man.

Not entirely true.

Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are already apparent in great apes although in lesser sophistication than in humans.
The great apes show considerable abilities for cognition and empathy.
Chimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence.

You forget that primitive man lived much in the same ways as advanced apes for a very very long time. It was very recently, in the last 4,000 yrs, that homo sapiens began to gradually make inroads in their intellectual development.
The capacities for such abstractions as advanced mathematics, philosophy, music and literature are more or less, unintended spinoffs from evolutionary gains in brain development.

Evolution is not required to directly account for such abstractions. As the brain reached a critical and advanced threshold in its evolutionary development, the social dynamics of the environment takes over to shape his interactive and introspective skills.
Being a social animal, humans are able to hone their interactive and introspective skills over time. It is from interaction, observation and introspection that such intellectual abstractions such as mathematics , philosophy, music, literature, and even religion are born.

Deep Sight:
6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being,......

I do not see a contradiction here.

Deep Sight:
6. The senses of conscious beings such as ourselves evince the sensory organs as tools serving a being, and not tools forming a being.

In simple terms, evolution as you read it would start with a unicellular organism, which, in reproduction, produces more complex organisms: as such: the physical matter itself which forms the organism is what the organism is, and nothing more. Basic logic denies this:

What the hell is basic logic? Who's basic logic?
What does basic logic deny and how does it deny whatever i is that it denies?

Is basic logic a substitute for the scientific method?

Deep Sight:
: for if the eventual result in advanced creatures such as us, leads to the formation of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, then these are faculties which a being requires to sense its environment

Correctly so.

Deep Sight:
and not faculties existing purposelessly in a void and serving nothing but their own existence - which is what strict evolutionary logic should infer.

No evolutionist has ever made such an assertion. Form and function are very well accounted for in theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
6.
Who is reading these words? Your eyes? Your brain? Or you? [i]Where is that you. In your eyes? In your brain? Why is that you interested in these words? Is the brain a creature by itself that has these sorts of hobbies and interests for its own exclusive pleasure. Or is it not rather true that it is you, the complete integrated being, that uses these tools to sense and apprehend the world about it?

Yada Yada Yada. The op seems to be murmuring to himself.

So the forces of evolution, with over 4.5 billion years of trials, errors and selections, has led to the the formation of an integrated being. Its a monumental achievement for our dynamic universe.

Hip hip Hurray for the Universe!.


Why is it better to create a supernatural illusion rather than face the harsh cold reality of the universe?.

Deep Sight:
7. Organs such as the eye and the brain[b] will eternally[/b] befog and defy any evolutionary explanation whatsoever. Forever.

Bingo!
Is this a genuine question or dogmatic statement?.
Infact, here we see that the op puts a stamp of absoluteness and finality to his dogmatic position.

The scientific explanations are there, and have a always been. the op does not hide the fact that he does not want to entertain any scientific explanation, no matter how plausible.

Deep Sight:
The intricacy involved is far too improbable to be countenanced by any serious thinker. Especially when considered in terms of their fitness for purpose and function. It is, actually so benumbing that it leaves the serious thinker numb, to think that others could suggest these to be the result of blind chance acting upon matter without purpose.

Again, complex ignorance on display.

The images below are of snowflakes.
Here we see that nature makes these one-of-a-kind intricate and very complex, mathematically precise geometrical snowflakes in just a few hours. All that is required is blind chance atmospheric conditions acting upon matter without purpose.

Any thinker one who says that nature is incapable of arranging complex and intricate systems with spare time of 4.7 billion yrs is simply numb in the brain.

Logicboy03:



How can a dead brain have consciousness when it is not working? Do you even think about what you write?


The brain works with CNS as a part of it and the body. A dismembered brain will lose consciousness because its system has been destroyed.


Sometimes, I even believe that you are not conscious. You must be a puppet in the hands of the spirit of s.tupidity

How do you get from a working brain to consciousness ? I'll answer that question for you. You can't without already starting from consciousness. At a point, you'll point to a given set of chemical compounds working and expect me (using my consciousness) to INFER that the brain made consciousness. Not so.

Not all dismembered brains are destroyed. In fact, foregoing the physiological conditions wherein they work some dismembered brain are fully intact but they are as dead as an Intel processor outside its device.

I am conscious of this fact. You IGNORE my simple point: components of the brain demonstrably lack consciousness and in themselves CAN NOT and DO NOT cause consciousness.

Uyi Iredia:

How do you get from a working brain to consciousness ? I'll answer that question for you. You can't without already starting from consciousness. At a point, you'll point to a given set of chemical compounds working and expect me (using my consciousness) to INFER that the brain made consciousness. Not so.

Not all dismembered brains are destroyed. In fact, foregoing the physiological conditions wherein they work some dismembered brain are fully intact but they are as dead as an Intel processor outside its device.

I am conscious of this fact. You IGNORE my simple point: components of the brain demonstrably lack consciousness and in themselves CAN NOT and DO NOT cause consciousness.

Look, you are not gifted like Anony and Deepsight who can mask bullshyt with style.


Just look at your first sentence. A question that no one can answer but then you follow on to make an argument from ignorance.


You have no points. The simple fact is that without the brain, there is no consciousness. We dont know how to create consciousness but we do know most of the conditions for it- all of them material things.

When you have an immaterial cause for consciousness, lay it on me. Materialism always wins in science.

You're a loser

plaetton:
Bingo!
Is this a genuine question or dogmatic statement?.
Infact, here we see that the op puts a stamp of absoluteness and finality to his dogmatic position.

The scientific explanations are there, and have a always been. the op does not hide the fact that he does not want to entertain any scientific explanation, no matter how plausible.



Again, complex ignorance on display.

The images below are of snowflakes.
Here we see that nature makes these one-of-a-kind intricate and very complex, mathematically precise geometrical snowflakes in just a few hours. All that is required is blind chance atmospheric conditions acting upon matter without purpose.

Any thinker one who says that nature is incapable of arranging complex and intricate systems with spare time of 4.7 billion yrs is simply numb in the brain.

Non-sequitur. The brain has specified complexity (as seen in digital systems) whereby its structure is encoded for. This doesn't apply to your snowflakes. In your earlier thread on this subject I mentioned this very fact that undirected Nature is very limited in the kinds of complexity it makes. I mentioned snowflakes and crustals as examples. Now if blind atmospheric conditions make snowflakes built by an decoding system on a material substrate (say specific water molecules read off specifc ice geometries to make a unique snowflake) my theory is shattered.

Prediction: You will either ignore this, obfuscate this or go on the foolish task (as atheists have done) of stating how snowflakes are built by coding mechanisms.

P.S: plaetton's talk is a fraudulent usage of Chaos theory. It has been used and refuted. In fact, Google Ilya Prigorine to see this. Prigorine noted certain chatic systems have localized systems of order and snowflakes and whirpools are good examples. The observation is okay but inane and deceptively used by plaetton and Ilya before him to posit that matter maketh life.

Chrisbenogor:
Ok this is an attempt to drag individuals into this discussion and I would not give you the satisfaction.Being a journalist is not bad after all is it . I can already see from you that being a self accomplished prophet of doom pastor does not mean one needs to be embellished with any particular critical thinking skills.

@Engineer

I have seen better days my friend.

An engineer that lacks creative capability for designing is definitely not what Nigeria Wants.

With her condition she needs radical proactive minds to stimulate the production sector, engineers like you should be in the fore front. but with your type of engineer turned interviewer busy looking for who to ask question in a public forum all the times, it gives me extra reasons to worry for her future.

Please, dont waste it, a mind they say is a terrible thing to waste, especially that of a trained engineer. Use it please, prove me wrong my friend, start answering question for a start, at least you passed your exams to become an engineer.

Have you never wandered why we are here as humans ?
Dont be a toy.

Logicboy03:


Look, you are not gifted like Anony and Deepsight who can mask bullshyt with style.

Thanks mate. I do know you for your logicboyism. In fact, you don't pretend to, you just spit bull$hit out your ar$€.

Logicboy03:
Just look at your first sentence. A question that no one can answer but then you follow on to make an argument from ignorance.

Wow ! Who's's the person saying "I don't know. Science will found out later." Certainly not me unless you having comprehension problems.

Logicboy03:
You have no points. The simple fact is that without the brain, there is no consciousness. We dont know how to create consciousness but we do know most of the conditions for it- all of them material things.

Not really. Unlike you, I have since made my compromise with materialism. Ideas (or consciousness) without matter is non-existent. Matter without ideas knows no existence. Theircombined action is observed in our world. Unlike your puny self, God (by definition for millenia) is not contingent on matter to be conscious.

Logicboy03:
When you have an immaterial cause for consciousness, lay it on me. Materialism always wins in science.

Materialism starts with a conscious mind. God is the immaterial cause for consciousness and I can't bring it to you any more you can bring the scientific method to me.

Logicboy03:
You're a loser

SMHWLOL.

Deep Sight:
8. The improbability of ALL life forms, right to the simplest single cell, gives a lie to evolution as conceived by scientists.

"Improbability " , in this case, is your word, not mine , nor anyone who understand the scientific theory of evolution.
Here again , we see the op open with a strong dogmatic position, and then later pretends to call it a poser.
So much for a poser.

Deep Sight:
It is statistically more probable for you to fling a clump of sand into the air, and have the particles randomly form a Boeing 747, than it is for random effects on matter to form a single cell, not to speak of a single organ such as an eye, a brain, a heart, a liver, or lungs.

And when that statistical probability is then stretched to having all these organs fit neatly into one integrated body governed by one integrated super computer which is a mind of thought and reason called a brain, to deliver the existence of a living feeling, breathing thinking being, then any suggestion that all of these are random chance events acting on blind matter becomes absolutely untenable, weird, absurd, and even comical. It frankly becomes a hilarious joke.

Hollow statements.
I am embarrassed to have to entertain this kind of mind-numbing ignorance. This shows that the op does not understand the basic ideas of evolution. This is something that he should be honest to admit.

The above statements show the misuse of statistical analysis. Here the op assumes that the interactions of simple particles of matter such as atoms, molecules and compounds in evolutionary events occurs sequentially, that is, one interaction at a time.

This stems from incomplete knowledge . It is an erroneous deduction from a very false assumption that interactions occur sequentially, rather than [b]simultaneously .
[/b]
Let me illustrate this point.

Lets say that the chances of a person winning the powerball lottery are 1 in 50 million chances, and the chances of winning it two or three times in a row are 1 in 10 billion chances. Right?
Yet in each powerball draw, we are almost certain to get a winner , right also ? good. So even though the odds for an individual are very very great, the odds for a population is a almost certain at any given draw.

For the the individual, the statistics say that he has to play 50 million times to be assured of certain winning.Fine.
But however, if he buys 2 tickets, his chances of winning have doubled. If he buys ten tickets, his chances of winning have increased tenfold. If he buys 50 million tickets, his can almost be assured of winning the great lottery.
Do you get my drift?
So rather than sequentially (as the op falsely assumes) trying his luck one ticket at a time, if he plays all his odds simultaneously , then he walks away with the prize.

This is how random particle, atomic and molecular interactions occur in the universe. So, in evolution, the laws of mathematics and statistics are obeyed to the letter.

With 14 billion years for the universe and 4.7 billion for the earth of the ceaseless and simultaneous interactions of matter, no odds are too great to form any variety of complex systems .

Deep Sight:
9. Evolution does not account for the abstract realm of ideas in which every human being lives his entire life: it does not account for the existence of thoughts: which exist and are not physical things: it does not show how a physical thing may produce non-physical things: with evolution only, the existence of non physical things which derive from physical things will be absurd and untenable, because evolution works with the physical only. The existence of thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and passions are inexplicable based on evolution only - as these are nonphysical things allegedly being produced by physical things - which evolution does not countenance.

First, evolution does not need to explain why you prefer amala to garri.
It does not need to explain why Nigerian drivers are probably the worse drivers in the world, or why Nigerian people are the most religious in the world. Social, political and economic factors account for those.
No one is born with a set of abstract ideas.

When homo sapiens or the primitive forerunners to homo sapiens attained a certain threshold of consciousness, self-awareness and sentience, our primitive ancestors began to coalesce into social units, and social factors came into play and became a significant part of his development and maturity.

Evolution explains the processes through which changes occur from simple to complex over periods of time.
I cannot see why thee must be a third or supernatural element.

As for physical things producing non-physical things, again, the op did not think this trough well enough.
Physical things produce non-physical things everyday around us.

Ions in the atmosphere produce electrical discharges in the form of lightning and thunder. Chemical reactions in nature produce heat,electrical currents and electrical impulses.
Is taste a physical or non-physical thing? What produces different tastes, molecular arrangement or divine ....whatever you call it?

Thoughts and emotions are generated by electrical impulses in the brain from chemical reactions, or , as we may learn in the near future, quantum mechanical processes in the brain.

So what's the big deal?

Advances in brain scanning technology now clearly show that thought patterns, feelings of pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness, honesty, deceit, etc, can be identified, tracked and color-coded in real time.

Also, the effects of alcohol, caffeine, narcotics, and other stimulant drugs on our moods, thoughts and feelings is a good indication that thoughts and feelings are products of, and therefore are effected by chemical reactions that generate electrical impulses in the brain.

The level of electrical activity in the brain is primarily what determines the level of intelligence of any organism.
Evolution ensured the development of a sophisticated neural electrical information storage and retrieval system in homo sapiens to compensate for their physical short comings needed for competition , survival and mastery of the environment.
Again, I am not supposing that the brain and other complementary systems grew overnight, but by a long , slow and tedious process of evolutionary trials and errors.

Deep Sight:
10. Se.xual reproduction, Se.xuality and se.xual organs deny and defy evolution as a product of chance alone. Se.xual organs so precisely fit for purpose in shape, form and function, as to be triggered by hormones into interplay, with the result of forming new creatures within a womb fit for said purpose, and feeding the new creatures therein for a gestation period prior to delivery as a new being into the world, cannot be explained as a consequence of random evolution.

You would have to show how, why and when the first asexual organism translated by reproduction into a s.exual organism, with all these fit for purpose se.xual organs and functions - and divided in functions male and female. You will have to account in evolutionary terms exactly how and why this happened somewhere along the line, as there was no such thing as male or female with first unicellular life, was there?

Exactly what is the evolutionary explanation for the dichotomy: male and female? How and why did this happen?

Why and how did se.xual reproduction come to exist in the evolutionary scale?

To fully comprehend and appreciate human sex differences, an understanding of the evolutionary, hormonal, and ecological conditions that underlie sex differences in other species is essential. In fact, a full understanding of human sex differences requires that we begin with a consideration of the evolution of se.xu.al reproduction itself. This is so because the grist of evolutionary selection is heritable individual differences and the ultimate source of this variability is se.x.ual reproduction.
In relation to asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction appears provide a number of benefits, including the elimination of harmful mutations , ecological adaptation , and the generation of a complex and varied immune system . In all of these cases, the result is greater variability, or individual differences, within sexua.lly reproducing species than within asexually reproducing species.

The early stages of human differentiation appear to be quite similar to the same biological processes in other mammals and the interaction of genes, hormones and body structures is fairly well understood. In the first weeks of life, a fetus has no anatomic or hormonal sex, and only a karyotype distinguishes male from female. Specific genes induce gonadal differences, which produce hormonal differences, which cause anatomic differences, leading to psychological and behavioral differences,

So basically single celled organisms mutated and evolved, eventually creating males and females. More genders could have been created, but since more that two would be problematic, male and female became dominant. Then over time those male and female organisms became more complex and evolved and mutated into various plants, mammals and reptiles.


Then sex purges the species of undesirable mutations.

^^^^
I will address the remaining posers(?) later.

truthislight:

@Engineer

I have seen better days my friend.

An engineer that lacks creative capability for designing is definitely not what Nigeria Wants.

With her condition she needs radical proactive minds to stimulate the production sector, engineers like you should be in the fore front. but with your type of engineer turned interviewer busy looking for who to ask question in a public forum all the times, it gives me extra reasons to worry for her future.

Please, dont waste it, a mind they say is a terrible thing to waste, especially that of a trained engineer. Use it please, prove me wrong my friend, start answering question for a start, at least you passed your exams to become an engineer.

Have you never wandered why we are here as human ?
Dont be a toy ?

If you had half the critical thinking prowess you have been frothing over you would realize I don't have time for proving anyone or anything wrong boy. I have enough real world issues to deal with.
Why are you asking me too many questions are you now a journalist?

plaetton: ^^^^
I will address the remaining posers(?) later.

Bros well done oh I am still reading.

Uyi Iredia:

Not really. Unlike you, I have since made my compromise with materialism. Ideas (or consciousness) without matter is non-existent. Matter without ideas knows no existence. Theircombined action is observed in our world. Unlike your puny self, God (by definition for millenia) is not contingent on matter to be conscious.

So a piece of wood that has no ideas doesnt exist? Is everyone seeing this foolishness?
So if all animals die on earth, will that make the wood non-existent?

Fail. Matter doesnt need ideas to exist. Ideas need matter to exist. An idea can exist without humans

Uyi Iredia:
Materialism starts with a conscious mind. God is the immaterial cause for consciousness and I can't bring it to you any more you can bring the scientific method to me.

The scientific method works. Your god doesnt explain one single thing. All God does is create more mysteriesrather than explain anything.

You say God is the cause for consciousness. Erm how did God cause it? How did God create consciousness and where did he/she do it? Why only consciousness? Why not the physical body?


Your God is inexplicable himself. Abeg, just stop the God of the gaps

Materialism starts with a conscious mind. God is the immaterial cause for consciousness and I can't bring it to you any more you can bring the scientific method to me.
SMHWLOL. [/quote]


I've said this several times, they won't just agree with you. There are some certain things that beyond scientific explanation or humans understanding, e.g 'consciousness'.

Honestly i don't know why you're dragging it this far. The earlier you people (atheists) realize that consciousness is immaterial cause of living or existence,the better.

D sage: Materialism starts with a conscious mind. God is the immaterial cause for consciousness and I can't bring it to you any more you can bring the scientific method to me.
SMHWLOL.


I've said this several times, they won't just agree with you. There are some certain things that beyond scientific explanation or humans understanding, e.g 'consciousness'.

Honestly i don't know why you're dragging it this far. The earlier you people (atheists) realize that consciousness is immaterial cause of living or existence,the better.

And you know this how? Can you remember being born? Have you experienced death?

D sage: Materialism starts with a conscious mind. God is the immaterial cause for consciousness and I can't bring it to you any more you can bring the scientific method to me.
SMHWLOL.

And we have argued it many times in this forum that god is an abstract concept.
We cannot accept an abstract concept be responsible for the observable universe. If you say that god is mathematical equation, then we have a responsibility to solve that equation.

When you make the above statement,how did you reach that conclusion, did you intuit it?
If you cannot prove it to me, then why should I accept it, on faith?

quote author=D sage]
I've said this several times, they won't just agree with you. There are some certain things that beyond scientific explanation or humans understanding, e.g 'consciousness'.

[/quote]

There is nothing that is beyond scientific explanation.
There are a lot of things we cannot yet explain in simple scientific language, but all the questions of existence can only be universally understood by the application of scientific questioning and reasoning.

quote author=D sage]
Honestly i don't know why you're dragging it this far. The earlier you people (atheists) realize that consciousness is immaterial cause of living or existence,the better. [/quote]

No thanks. We would rather take our sweet time to scientifically deduce that ,whenever we get to that point .
We prefer to arrive at at scientific certainty.

After all, what's the rush?

Is Jesus coming anytime soon?