Facile? That is exactly what I am asking. What makes you breath? Is it natural selection or something else?
It would have manifested through natural selection, But it would have manifested in ancestors millions of years ago. We weren't even mammals when this response would have first come about.
It would have evolved shortly after the respiratory system did. Having lungs that draw air in is good, it allows an organism to grow bigger, move faster and think better. But it's not too good if there isn't a fail-safe in place to make the animal breath in situation where the organism is unconscious and Co2 levels are increasing. So it wouldn't have taken long for a reflex action that draws breath automatically to develop.
Same thing that causes any trait found in any organism... Genes. it's likely that the gene that initiated this particular trait would have been a gene that made the animal prone to continued involuntary muscle spasms replicating repetitive muscle contractions. kind of like muscle memory. This would have been at a time when the organism had a respiratory system that was so primitive that it wasn't really needed, Though still beneficial. This would mean that while a primitive respiratory system had started to develop it wasn't vital that it continued to draw air even when the organism was unconscious, Though doing so would prove advantageous.
I knew i had you with that last post. You just can't do it, can you? You simply can't partake in reasonable dialogue that questions your preconceived fantasies about invisible men in the sky. God makes babies breath, That's what you believe and nothing is going to change it.
You never had me at all. Actually, I am trying to get you to think outside the square. Obviously, I failed this time. However, you have not answered the "muscle spasm" "giraffe" question. Are you able to clarify how this works or is it going to be a series of "most likely", "would have" answers? In regards to my beliefs. True, I won't change unless I see evidence solid enough to seriously contradict them. To this day, I have not seen that. Now, let us not forget I was once an atheist, for 29 years in fact. Although, I don't have the scientific background that you may have in regards to higher education, I know where you are coming from. Just remember, I have been there.
So let me get this straight.... You want to know what animal turned into the giraffe and how the most primitive form of involuntary respiratory reflex caused it? that is your question? it's not so much "thinking out side the square" as it is "putting your brain in a blender". it makes no sense. By the way, before we continue, Do you accept that the process i described is perfectly able to result in babies breathing without the help of god? You wont admit to believing it because, well, You aren't allowed to are you, But do you accept that if evolution were true the process i described could have done it?
Let's not jump to conclusions. By your words, involuntary respiratory reflex is one part of "natural selection" and also as part of the evolutionary thinking. Using this method and going through the evolutionary process for a species to turn into a giraffe, surely you can work out the chain of events? I am not saying that evolution states a jump from an amoeba to a giraffe. But you should be able to work out what the changes were inbetween (going by evolution theory). No. I don't see how that process would have done it. For me, there has to be some sort of spark. No different to a spark allowing combustion in an engine. The spark must be applied for that engine to work, correct? Which brings us back to the discussion of intelligent design.
You want me to detail every event that lead to the giraffe? do you think that is reasonable? also, What has it got to do with the previous points you were making? I don't know if it has escaped your attention, But people aren't cars. And LOL at "spark"... What next "energy"? You should be a ghost hunter, You come out with about the same amount of unquantifiable pseudoscience. You aren't allowed to reject scientific explanations on the grounds that they don't include a mystical force that you assume must be required.
Sorry I jump into the discussion here but I missed the start of the breathing issue. Where does exactly SEO_services think god's involvement occurs? At each baby's birth? At each breath? During evolution? I also missed the relationship with giraffes
Where's the rule that says I can't reject scientific explanations? Do you not remember a short time ago you rejected a scientists explanations quite vehemently. Are you in subjection to the same rule? In regards to the giraffe, just the basics will do..let's start at the number of generations of evolving just to get to the giraffe. In regards to the "spark". Is a "spark" not a form of energy? According to the Bible it is explained clearly at what point God was involved in regards to human life. Animal life is another matter entirely. Keep up man..let's just look at the missing link between an amoeba and a giraffe..can you fill in the blanks?
here is what i said; You aren't allowed to reject scientific explanations on the grounds that they don't include a mystical force that you assume must be required. it's not so much a "rule" as it is an "accepted way grown ups behave". it's faulty logic to say that my argument against a magical force can't be true because a magic force is needed and my argument doesn't include one. It amounts to you stamping your feet, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "MAGIC MAN DONE IT". How could i possibly know that? Tell me how finding that information would be possible and i'll find it. you tell me. it's your pseudoscience bullshit buzzword. Can i ask you something cheap? Do you believe that your level of education, The understanding you have of the evidence supporting evolution and your grasp of genetics entitles you to refute evolution? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm honestly asking. Do you really think you are right or do you just pretend to think you are right? It's just that i find it hard to believe that any adult, or even an averagely educated child, Could still disbelieve in evolution and common decent in the face of such overwhelming evidence. I mean, We have loads of evidence, and you have nothing. It kinda suggests that the reason you disbelieve it isn't because of the evidence, it's in spite of it. I mean really, if evidence was such an important factor for you the last thing you would believe is that a magic man done it.
really? I came in with a couple of questions in order to understand what was being discussed and you responded with nonsense.