Nostr Web Client

I'm not the one making crazy impossible claims. You share your evidence first. You just threw a bunch of stuff at the wall, then completely avoided acknowledging when I pointed out it's nonsense.

So why did "evolution" put the testicles between the legs instead of inside the rib cage, if that would be so much better? You made the claim that evolution is not coincidence, so what's the mechanism? You can't simultaneously claim that "evolution" can somehow create incredible functional complexity, yet somehow fail to correct what you claim to be obvious flaws, but also not function through the mechanism of random coincidence.

Anyone with common sense can look at the incredibly complex design of life and see it took intelligence to create that. And the more scientists study and learn, the more that's confirmed. If you're making a claim to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you to show how all the scientific principles and observable evidence are invalid in the origin of life.

MAHDOOD 1y ago

I didn’t respond to the things you said initially because I made the mistake of throwing too many bits of information at you at once and that made it complicated to keep track of everything. So here are my responses:

Evolution put the testicles between the legs to separate it from the heat of the internal organs that would’ve been damaging to the sperm. No evolutionist claims that this is perfect design. Testicles between the legs is stupid design. If you disagree with that then you’ve probably never been hit in the nuts or gotten into a fight and learned how vulnerable you are. Men in sports wear athletic cups for this reason.

Now if you’re wondering why evolution didn’t put the testicles in the rib cage and create more hardy sperm, that is something natural selection answers. It’s likely that, as the testicles of some animals descended toward the legs, their ability to reproduce and/or survive improved. My best guess is that the amount of energy it would take to produce hardy sperm that are resistant to the heat of the internal organs lowers chances of survival and reproduction. Think about a woman’s menstruation cycle and the amount of energy they spend each month: the period cramps and moodiness. Are women as efficient during that time of the month? No. However, if it didn’t take more energy to produce, then the hardy sperm likely would take longer to make which is also a disadvantage. The animal with the testicles between its legs could have sperm readily available whenever the opportunity to reproduce came (e.g. female is in heat). Female’s eggs are not in the rib cage but they are still created internally. They create more hardy eggs but they’re not always ready to reproduce like men are. All animal reproduction is dependent on the readiness of those eggs. The amount of time it takes to produce the eggs was determined by natural selection for survival. A female that produced eggs faster would have created offspring that were less likely to survive. But a female that produced eggs slower would have not found a partner that would stick around to protect her during pregnancy. The male with testicles between its legs that is ready to provide sperm when it comes across a ready female is the one that is going to pass down its genes more often than the one whose testicles are in his lower abdomen. So over thousands of years, the animals with testicles that slowly traveled down to a cooler region, had a slight advantage over the ones that did not. This continued until eventually the testicles ended up between the legs. So the testicles being in that stupid spot is because of efficiency and availability in sperm production. But that is not intelligent design. Evolution can only make do with what it has and it doesn’t mean that it’ll lead to something perfect. Natural selection just means that the traits that improve the ability to survive will be gradually passed down while the traits that harm ability to survive gradually disappear. If male testicles started to venture back toward the adbomen, their ability to reproduce will be hindered and natural selection would eliminate it.

Regarding the flightless birds, the answer is simple. For ostriches, the environment that they ended up living in provided little to no benefits for flight. So as the birds genetics slowly changed, the birds with slightly more powerful legs and heavier bodies had an advantage in survival over other birds that could fly. After thousands of years, the birds with stronger legs that cannot fly are what remains. Flight requires a lot of energy and producing capable wings also requires a lot of energy so natural selection eliminated the inefficiency.

With the blind mole rats, they had use for eyes at some point but natural selection provided survival advantages to the animals that did not waste energy producing efficient eye sight.

Evolution does not create something new out of nothing. It can only gradually adapt what it already has to something that can improve survival.

Now can you provide your evidence of gods existence outside of this reality?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

f0xr 1y ago

I've heard that when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole holding a shovel, the best policy is to stop digging. But you haven't stopped yet so...

That text wall about testicles makes zero sense. You start off by claiming that it's a stupid design. Which supposedly proves that it evolved instead of being created.

Then you continue by explaining in detail why a different placement wouldn't work because it would reduce reproductive fitness. Unfortunately you actually have no idea what you're talking about, you say your best guess is that hardy sperm that could survive in the rib cage would either (1) take too much energy or (2) be too slow to produce. That's just complete speculation, you actually have no idea. But you defend the existing design by claiming any other design would hurt reproductive fitness and would therefore be eliminated by the process of natural selection.

So which is it? Your entire point was that the current placement is a design flaw that proves it wasn't intelligently designed. You can't simultaneously argue that it's a stupid design that proves evolution occurred, but also the most reproductively ideal design possible. If it's a stupid design, propose a better one. If you can't, I don't see any alternative to the conclusion that it was designed by someone more intelligent than yourself.

The problem is, you're trying to play both sides of the fence. You want to use so-called "design flaws" to "prove" no intelligent design. But you know full well that almost everything in nature is elegantly and functionally designed almost to the point of perfection. So you also have to leave the door open to the argument that evolution can produce ideal and optimally fit outcomes. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument, and I see right through it.

I'm fully aware of how birds lost their ability to fly and mole rats their ability to see. Again, I'm not sure how you think a loss of function is going to convince me of the power of evolution. The problem for you is, that's all we observe happening today; loss of previous function and information. We don't see the reverse. If you could point to a bird that had no wings and developed wings and the ability to fly over time, that would be relevant. This isn't. It's like arguing that the fact that some shingles blew off your house during a hurricane proves that your house was built by random gusts of wind blowing the structure into place. It's ludicrous. Increasing entropy is the exact opposite of what we would see if evolution was in fact responsible for the order we see in living organisms.

I fully agree that evolution does not create something new out of nothing. Gradually adapting what it already has begs the question of where that "what it already has" came from. If evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it seems pretty ludicrous to keep defending it given the complete lack of alignment with the real world.

You keep dodging the question of how evolution does all the things you claim it does. How does it change the DNA? A human has 20-25,000 genes and over 3 billion DNA base pairs. How does evolution go from a single cell organism or whatever you think came first somehow, to that? How do the changes in the DNA happen? If the changes don't happen randomly by coincidence, what's' the mechanism?

One piece of evidence of God's existence outside our reality is His Word, in which He gives us some specific information about His nature and activities. Since the other information He gave has proven to be accurate, reliable and useful in understanding the world, it's logical to conclude that the information about His existence is also accurate.

MAHDOOD 1y ago

The position of testicles is the best that evolution can do. That does not mean it is intelligently designed. I don’t understand where your confusion is. God placing the testicles between the legs is retarded when he could’ve created us in a way where reproduction could happen without testicles at all. An all powerful limitless god can do anything. Saying that testicles between your legs is intelligently designed doesn’t make sense. If religious people argued that god designed us in this way because he just felt like it, I’d respect that. If you wanted to build a car from scratch, it would look like what cars look like today. However, if you were going to convert a washing machine into a car, you’d have to make certain sacrifices. No matter how many years engineers spend optimizing that washing machine, it’s never going to be intelligently designed because you’re just adapting what it already has.

I’m using logical reasoning. Sperm die in higher temperatures. When it’s hot your balls sag lower to stay cool.

My point is that it is not intelligently designed. It is just the best that natural selection could do. It’s a B instead of an A+.

There are intermediary animals that evolved to fly in the fossil records. There are also animals that appear to be in a transitory stage of flight: flying squirrels and flying fish.

The question of where “what it already has” came from is not one that I have attempted to provide an answer for. Evolution does not explain where the origin of life comes from. My simple response to that would be what is the origin of god? Where did god come from? What created him?

It’s natural selection. DNA changes occur through mutations and then natural selection does the rest.

How do you know what gods word is? Which god? Just because some things in an ancient religious text are true, does not mean everything else it says is true. What about the things that god supposedly said that are false?