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:
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:
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 theory
not 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
edit on 8-5-2014 by rkingpin because: (no reason given)