WHo be the alyan?

Human beings are the aliens of the planet earth.

Earth has been long inhabited before humans arrived by other beings.

Humans were exiled to Earth and the beings had to make way.

So Humans are the aliens here.

Ironic.



To those who say we evolved from single cell organisms:
Single cell organisms have a distinct survival advantage over sexual organisms, in that they have to ave or find a mate to reproduce! So if ALL life started off as single cells reproducing asexually then there is absolutely no way it would evolve to human beings even animals. The reason is that science says evolution is a result of survival of the fittest, those mutations that result in advantages in survival are those that persist and evolve further.

So in the very basic stage of "evolution" asexually organisms would have a distinct advantage over mutated organisms that require a sexual partner. So why would the sexual organisms evolve further.... They wouldnt, they never did, they would just "evolve" into more complex asexual organisms.

Think like this if you had a vehicle that made its own petrol and you could drive it non stop why would you replace it with a vehicle that needs to stop repeatedly and fill up (i.e it NEEDS third party petrol to continue)

What are the chances that a simple ASEXUAL organism mutates within the same lifespan/generation into two PERFECTLY coupled organisms that have the exact required components to facilitate reproduction together? It isnt really feasible.

So scientifically evolution doesnt make sense. Religiously evolution is not considered true, so most probably it just isnt true..

a reply to: rkingpin

So in the very basic stage of "evolution" asexually organisms would have a distinct advantage over mutated organisms that require a sexual partner.

Not really.

You can see all kinds of variation in different types of life throughout the world. Some where the woman kill the men after they're done implanting them with sperm, some that force the males to do the work, or worship their dominant opposite accordingly. That system may be much more fit than the same creatures reproducing asexually. All larger species live in very extreme environments, and there are many more factors deciding which are more fit, than say for a smudge of goo growing in a petri dish.

So why would the sexual organisms evolve further.... They wouldnt, they never did, they would just "evolve" into more complex asexual organisms.

So you acknowledge evolution but believe it is limited within reproductive types? That really doesn't make sense.

What are the chances that a simple ASEXUAL organism mutates within the same lifespan/generation into two PERFECTLY coupled organisms that have the exact required components to facilitate reproduction together? It isnt really feasible.

It's pretty likely actually, after a certain amount of time, the genetic trait (a common mutation) would eventually fix, and then voila, you would have a whole bunch of working genitalia all available at the same time.

So scientifically evolution doesnt make sense.

Um....



Scientifically, it doesn't make sense eh?

Scientifically, we know that there are species which can produce both asexually, and sexually. (Source)

Some species can even reproduce asexually as well as sexually, depending on which stage of their life cycle they’re in, or whether males are present.

...So it makes complete sense that a species could switch from one to the other. At some given point sexual reproduction would become more popular and fix as the primary means of reproduction. Given time after, and no longer use of asexual reproductive assets, its logical for those traits to disappear.

There are plenty of reasons sexual reproduction can give greater benefit than asexual, like:

Sex maintains genetic diversity. Having a population with lots of genetic variation increases the likelihood that some individuals will be resistant to a parasitic disease. But as the resistant individuals become more common, the disease catches up and evolves to break through their defences.

Genetic mixing through sexual reproduction quickly gives rise to individuals that are resistant to the new disease strain. These become more common and the race goes on.

...so unfortunately, your train of thought has gone off the bridge. (Like the train in back to the future).




Quick, call Doc, see if he can power up the DeLorean to before you posted this thread.

Why throw the baby out with the bath water? The disadvantages of asexual reproduction include production of a less genetic variety that gives the offspring a lesser chance of survival in a varying environment and the fact that only identical individuals are produced. In asexual reproduction the offspring has identical genes and chromosomes to the parent. This includes any mutations that occur, this can be an advantage and a disadvantage.

Humans (mammals) may have simply evolved from numerous mutations that we found beneficial in exploring new environments. New environments would have been the catalyst of many mutations. Obviously, sexual reproduction became more useful and thus evolved.

Just because the bible speaks of a human's interpretation of creation, does not discredit science nor the bible's truths. Mankind in earlier times, would not comprehend such visions of creation and space/time. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, I am of the opinion both sides has truth and neither sides, (evolution vs creationism) really 'know' the truth, just have different perspectives on the same process.

Edit add: looks like Boncho above checks his bath water before tossing too!

Nice troll post, including the mis-spelling of Alien. Are you sitting back with a beer & a ciggy having a laugh?

no not really, over the years science has come up with lots of things simply to support THEORIES and themselves. Then later they get conclusive proof they are wrong then they dump it and follow the new theory as though its the gospel and have alwasy followed. it.

One good example is the earth is flat theory... at that time you would have ridculed me if i told you it was round!

We know as science tells us bacteria and simple celled organisms can survive total extremes of conditions. YOu may find bacteria on asteroids, or saturns moons, you find them deep under antartica, you find them in deepest ocean trenchs, you will find them floating round highest atmosphere, you will find them inside us, outside us, you will find them resitant to antibiotics, you will find them in volcanoes and on and on. They dont need to grow a penis or breast to gain ANY survival advantage, in fact on earth with the variety of extremes in conditions in natural form (i,e without your biohazard, submarine or technology) the bacteria/single celled organisms that reproduce asexually still have the survival advantage. The asteroid impact that "Supposedly" wiped most of the life on earth did not destroy the bacteria, so some that exist today are millions of years old or more. ALL the (what you would term the most evolved species) were wiped out, the dinosaurs, top of the food chain, gone... but the bacteria survived...

So you acknowledge evolution but believe it is limited within reproductive types? That really doesn't make sense. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

nope, im saying IF evolution is true thats what it would be limited to.

It's pretty likely actually, after a certain amount of time, the genetic trait (a common mutation) would eventually fix, and then voila, you would have a whole bunch of working genitalia all available at the same time. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So its like saying one day having a penis made all bacteria have a survival advantage. so then all bacteria had penises, but then they couldnt reproduce as a penis wouldnt fit into a penis. but then by chance a random mutation occured and hey presto no penis just a hole which fitted round one of the penises perfectly AND it just happened that this random mutation ALSO gave the mutated bacteria the exact opposite components/characteristics it needed to allow reproduction? and then this bacteria couple lived on, the rest withered away.... I just re read that and it seems like a joke.

I think with this you either beleive one or the other and one day we shall see who is right. As you cant disprove either, just argue and debate. evolution is after all a theorynot actual science

Heres another to understand this. Today we all reproduce sexaully there is no man or woman that can reproduce asexually. Now if one person after reaching its prime age, was able to reproduce asexually infinite times, that person would gain an advantage, each new offsrping could still have minor difference that may give resitannce to some virus, or better able to cope with sunlight but more or less the same (like twins) but they would reprodcue asexually. You know this mutated person would have survival advantage and would even slowly replace normal humans?

The other way round if we all reproduced sexually and ONE mutated person grew male genitals and was only able to reproduce sexually, how the ~bleep@ would he survive? there are no females and he cant reproduce himself or with an asexual person, so unless in his lifetime a random mutation produced a human who was female he wouldnt find a sexual partner and that mutation would die out. But we know that random mutations are rare so it would be quite unlikely a female would present as random mutation

a reply to: rkingpin
Yeah your kinda right...but please don't go exposing us....We are the good ones..Nordic!

a reply to: rkingpin

Why separate and limit the mutation that evolved sexual reproduction at different times? The more logical aspect would be that one offspring had mutated into 2 separate but cohesives as the initial pair. They synced up and were able to evolve in a more beneficial way to advance their species.