Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[awty]

No, you're "arguments" (for want of a better term) do not de-facto deserve debunking since your obvious ignorance of the sciences make them self-refuting, leaving the two of us with nothing more than pointing and laughing with only yourself as the target.

Yeah more insults. Anyone watching: I hope you are not fooled by this facade?

Your facade?  You are a chew toy that will get old and tossed aside in short order.

[Ravenshire]

Actually, I didn't mention you're beliefs at all. As I said about reading for comprehension...

You're argument from incredulity not withstanding, there are billions of people who find other (or no) religions more compelling than yours. I'm guessing, though I won't speak for them, that they see plenty of unreasonableness or inconsistency in those fundamentals.

As far as the fundamentals of the christer cult, I was raised in a christer home and taught christer ideology. I've read the buy-bull, more than once. I found none of it compelling. Much like your silly ideas. (<---- pay attention to that bit, you know, for the comprehension).

Again, I did  not ask anyone here to accept Christianity. What I HAVE done is:
(1) Argued for the insufficiency of reductionistic Natural Selection to explain the present order. 
(2) In passing, I have mentioned my Christian beliefs and challenged observers to identify anything unreasonable there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread convincingly rise to that challenge.

What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

[Jal]

Again, I did  not ask anyone here to accept Christianity. What I HAVE done is:
(1) Argued for the insufficiency of reductionistic Natural Selection to explain the present order. 
(2) In passing, I have mentioned my Christian beliefs and challenged observers to identify anything unreasonable there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread convincingly rise to that challenge.

What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

More insults,  and no substance. Yawn.

[Ravenshire]

No, you're "arguments" (for want of a better term) do not de-facto deserve debunking since your obvious ignorance of the sciences make them self-refuting, leaving the two of us with nothing more than pointing and laughing with only yourself as the target.

Yeah more insults. Anyone watching: I hope you are not fooled by this facade?

Pointing up ignorance is no insult. We are all ignorant of something. You just seem to be ignorant of the sciences.

Had I called you stupid, or retarded, of which i'm guilty of neither, you might have a complaint.

[Ravenshire]

What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

More insults,  and no substance. Yawn.

See above. 

[Jal]

Again, I did  not ask anyone here to accept Christianity. What I HAVE done is:
(1) Argued for the insufficiency of reductionistic Natural Selection to explain the present order. 
(2) In passing, I have mentioned my Christian beliefs and challenged observers to identify anything unreasonable there. I haven't seen anyone on this thread convincingly rise to that challenge.

What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

Science textbooks won't necessarily yield metaphysical truth since they gratuitously PRESUME a wholly scientific world view. Science textbooks skip Philosophy 101 in their haste to dive into Science 101.

[Ravenshire]

What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

Science textbooks won't necessarily yield metaphysical truth since they gratuitously PRESUME a wholly scientific world view. Science textbooks skip Philosophy 101 in their haste to dive into Science 101.

I'm not claiming they will. I'm claiming they'll reduce your ignorance of the sciences. I'm not the one who came here to spout silly ideas based at least in part in ignorance of the subject matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's where the trouble arises, I keep imploring you to consider whether it only seems clear to you.  Natural selection explains hunger as a homeostatic strategy with a larger range of survival benefits than simple cellular triggers.  That seems clear to me.

The question of "Explaining" hunger is not my primary emphasis.  The major thrust of my argument is that hunger is irrelevant/  useless for survival if we are inexorably locked into domino-like behavior that cannot freely opt to shift direction toward food when we feel hungry. If we have no free control over our trajectory, we will starve.

I didn't say they required a God. I said merely said that domino determinism won't suffice to explain the pursuit of food, clothing, safety, and shelter.

This entails at minimum a pansychism antithetical to a wholly reductionistic domino-effect determnism.  Let alone account for self-awareness.

Hunger does seem like a thing that "domino determinism" explains pretty well, though?  You feel it and you can't help but feel it.  It may not actually help you in a given instance, I walk to the fridge and there's food there...but we're not all so fortunate... but you'll feel it anyway.  Amusingly enough, you'll feel it even if you don't -need- food...and that's not a bug, it's a feature.  If our homestatic strategies were more efficient then we'd only eat when we needed to, like alot of life.  That depends on the regularity of feeding oppurtunities, though.  Hunger sends us off looking for food even when we don't need it, which makes it more robust as a strategy when there is food instability or bottlenecks.  Fat storage is a similar but unconscious strategy.  

So...do I think that for a creature like us living in a world like ours the animals who are more compelled to go in search of food when they need it and when they don't are likely to out-survive and out-reproduce others?  OFC I do.  Seems pretty reasonable, right? That's natural selection for you.

Notice how I didn't need gods or panpsychism to explain this, and that I did explain it (even if my explanation is wrong)? This is why I don't understand why you believe the things you say.

As for that last line..Ill note..as I have so often in our convo already..that even if we do have free control over our trajectory..we still starve. Another one of those things that fails to show any difference between a world one way or another.

...all of it swirling an obvious drain. You mistakenly believe that Other Items X are necessarily linked to either a theistic god or panpsychism, and it seems true and clear to you, but it just isn't. Insomuch as those Other Items X are not actually atheism, and regardless of how wrong you are about any given thing...the real takeaway, for me, is that you're aiming your rifle the wrong way. You have a problem with that other stuff, it's nothing to do with atheist reductionism.

[Jal]

Science textbooks won't necessarily yield metaphysical truth since they gratuitously PRESUME a wholly scientific world view. Science textbooks skip Philosophy 101 in their haste to dive into Science 101.

I'm not claiming they will. I'm claiming they'll reduce your ignorance of the sciences. I'm not the one who came here to spout silly ideas based at least in part in ignorance of the subject matter.

So you're arguing that science textbooks will reduce a person's ignorance of the sciences.  And you really felt a need to point this out?

In that case you're right - I really did not make a good show of intellectual competence. Seems I will need to do better.

[Jal]

The question of "Explaining" hunger is not my primary emphasis.  The major thrust of my argument is that hunger is irrelevant/  useless for survival if we are inexorably locked into domino-like behavior that cannot freely opt to shift direction toward food when we feel hungry. If we have no free control over our trajectory, we will starve.

I didn't say they required a God. I said merely said that domino determinism won't suffice to explain the pursuit of food, clothing, safety, and shelter.

This entails at minimum a pansychism antithetical to a wholly reductionistic domino-effect determnism.  Let alone account for self-awareness.

Hunger does seem like a thing that "domino determinism" explains pretty well, though?  You feel it and you can't help but feel it.  It may not actually help you in a given instance, I walk to the fridge and there's food there...but we're not all so fortunate... but you'll feel it anyway.  Amusingly enough, you'll feel it even if you don't -need- food...and that's not a bug, it's a feature.  If our homestatic strategies were more efficient then we'd only eat when we needed to, like alot of life.  That depends on the regularity of feeding oppurtunities, though.  Hunger sends us off looking for food even when we don't need it, which makes it more robust as a strategy when there is food instability or bottlenecks.  Fat storage is a similar but unconscious strategy.  

So...do I think that for a creature like us living in a world like ours the animals who are more compelled to go in search of food when they need it and when they don't are likely to out-survive and out-reproduce others?  OFC I do.  Seems pretty reasonable, right?

Again,  my primary crux  wasn't to "explain hunger" but to challenge reductionists to explain how it is useful/ relevant in a domino determinism.