• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Is evolution an adequate explanation for biodiversity ?

rationalist

Member
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

If you can't answer the questions below, you can't explain the REAL mechanisms of biodiversity. As such, your answer is PSEUDO-scientific and inadequate.

That is commonly the case, when someone shows a nice phylogenetic tree, and claims to have provided supportive evidence for evolution.

Explaining organismal form depends on explaining how organs, tissues, and cells form and gain shape. On the lowest level of the hierarchy, the formation of cells in a multicellular organism depends on the specification of:
1. Morphogenesis of various eukaryotic cells, structures, and shapes
2. Cell fate determination and differentiation ( phenotype, or what cell type each one will become )
3. Cell growth and size
4. Development and cell division counting: cells need to be programmed to stop self-replicating after the right number of cell divisions
5. Mechanisms of pattern formation
6. Hox genes
7. Position and place in the body. This is crucial. Limbs like legs, fins, eyes, etc. must all be placed at the right place.
8. What communication it requires to communicate with other cells, and the setup of the communication channels
9. Sensory and stimuli functions of cells
10. What specific new regulatory functions do cells have to acquire
11. When will the development program of the organism express the genes to grow the new cells during development?
12. Change regulation in the composition of the cell membrane and/or secreted products.
13. Specification of the cell-cell adhesion proteins and which ones will be used in each cell to adhere to the neighbor cells ( there are 4 classes )
14. Apoptosis: programming of the time period the cell keeps alive in the body, and when is it time to self-destruct and be replaced by newly produced cells of the same kind
15. Set up each cells specific nutrition demands
16. Cell shape changes
17. Cell proliferation which is the process that results in an increase of the number of cells, and is defined by the balance between cell divisions and cell loss through cell death or differentiation.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Is evolution an adequate explanation for biodiversity ?

Yes.

Not only yes, but its also the *only* adequate explanation for biodiversity.


If you can't answer the questions below,...

Anyone else see any questions? No? So everyone can answer ALL the questions below because there are none.

Anyone thinking this is yet another iteration of Otangelo robotically copying and pasting from his vanity forum?
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Anyone thinking this is yet another iteration of Otangelo robotically copying and pasting from his vanity forum?

Yes, and this is no longer tolerated. Otangelo has been unofficially warned not to do this. Last chance, Otty, if I see one more wall of text copied from your blog, or anywhere else for that matter, I will restrict the amount of characters you can post, how often you can post, and where you can post. LAST WARNING. Excerpts where relevant and ON TOPIC are fine, random blocks of off topic gibberish are not.

Ignore me at your peril.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated.

False.

The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation.

False.

It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today.

False.

Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant.

False.

So is the fossil record.

False.

It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory,

False.

The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step.

False.

Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

False, false, and false.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
I will restrict the amount of characters you can post, how often you can post, and where you can post. LAST WARNING.

Well if its his last warning then he will get a week ban so he can reflect on his mistakes. When he continues then its a permanent ban. I did some research and he is kicked out by many all ready. I want a quiet website and do not want to police all day long most people here know how to behave.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Well if its his last warning then he will get a week ban so he can reflect on his mistakes. When he continues then its a permanent ban. I did some research and he is kicked out by many all ready.

It's really not at all surprising. I think he's one of those chaps who believes that netting negative reactions to his mendacious behavior somehow validates his opinions.


most people here know how to behave.

And some of us are trying... we really are. :)
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I'm starting to think he's trying to get banned tbh :/
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I'm starting to think he's trying to get banned tbh :/

It's that medal of honour idea that he already implied when saying that Kenneth Miller - an actual professor of cellular biology - stopped responding to him on FB - as if that's an indication that Miller had difficulty with Otangelo's quarter-baked ramblings rather than, presumably, because he got fucked off with the mendacity.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
So pseudoscience is tolerated here. Good science is not. Got ya. And the excuse that I am copy/pasting is LAME. Go. Ban me.

Pseudoscience is indeed tolerated here insofar as Creationists are permitted to post.

Good science is more than tolerated here: it's expected when the topic is purportedly scientific in nature. That's why your absurd antiscientific rants are meeting such resistance: because people here actually value science. Some of us have degrees and careers in science. You? You have a religious belief, and the mode of belief you've been inculcated into is not to provide arguments FOR that belief, but instead to attack science with specious ignorant arguments as if somehow disproving some contention in science makes Magic Man in the Sky suddenly become a workable scientific hypothesis.

There is no excuse for your repeated copy and pasting of your vanity forum - you've got some manic obsessive drive to run around the internet regurgitating the litany of bullshit you've collected at people. And apparently, you find it surprising that people consider that demented.

Regardless, you've shown no interest whatsoever in science Otangelo - you flunk science.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Troll confirmed, as if any further evidence were necessary. One week ban for the troll, starting now.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Ha :D

His ban will lift on 31st Jan, so next Sunday, in the mean time he can go troll elsewhere.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Incidentally, is this guy just Elshamah?

I wasn't around when Elshamah was posting here, but I noticed in the Issues & Suggestions subforum complaints by members about that user which i believe resulted in a 'mega-thread'


In that thread, Elshamah simply copies and pastes from his vanity forum which... lo and behold... has the same basic name as its URL as Otangelo's does. Possibly, he migrated it at some point but kept the same name.

So not just a mendacious troll, but a known mendacious troll.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
A long standing member here did float that idea before, we didn't look into it in too much detail at the time, but I'm happy to put in the time if this is believed to be the case
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Yes, yes, yes it's him. It's definitely him. I've read a few posts, same content, same arguments, same written style.

He wasn't banned though - he left of his own divinely granted Free Will.

Still a mendacious troll though.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
And oh my... it also turns out this guy is/was Jireh on rationalskepticism, practically a poster-child for obsessive Creationist mendacity. People there still analogize the behavior of recidivist liars as acting like Jireh. :D

I wonder if Jireh/Elshamah/Otangelo ever managed to get himself booted from every site on the internet for his despicable dishonesty, whether he would finally sit back and think "I've won!".
 
Back
Top