It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

page: 29
15
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: AlienView

The main reason for the delineation of the sexes is genetic recombination through meiosis. This is especially true when environments change or a disease is spreading through a population. Genetic recombination also allows for the removal of a deleterious mutation

Sexual reproduction can produce individuals who have an adaptation that makes them more suited for the new environment or are immune to the disease will pass those genes on and the species will continue.
Aesexual reproduction, however, creates identical copies with no variation.


Makes perfect sense - Almost as though it was 'designed' to happen that way - Maybe even 'Intelligent Design'


Keep up the good work - Maybe one day in a hypothetical parallel universe you will convince the hypothetical
gods of creation that the experiment is working after all - And then the genie will reveal himself - Just maybe......

The universe did really begin with the pure light of an intelligence most Humans are only capable of
imagining, but not understanding



But you see you can't really have it two ways - Either the existent state reflects an existent intelligence
- Or the existent state reflects 'nothing' - But just remember - nothing can not exist


Ready to evolve one step further Human




- AlienView




There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.


'Nature' ? - What is that?

'help develop' - Nature as a developer - what does that mean? - Why would so-called nature develop anything?
What are the forces, motivations, and reasons for nature to be in the development business?

'and plenty of time' - How much time? - Will the same length of time and resousces produce the same results?
- If not, why not/ - If so, it is intelligent design - It is science by design - Design defining and explaining science.
Science showing the design - And the all impotant 'observer' making it real.


'natural selection /adaptation take its course' - What course? - Why? - Why produce beings that will go extinct?

Sounds like an experiment to me - But by who? - Nature is not who - Who is a conscious entity.

Intelligent Design says nature is being manipulated by conscious will - Even if the coscious will reserved
the right to experiment - Random, what you call natural, selection is not completely random or natural,
- Though it occures in a natural matrix - and the experiment allows for choice and different possibilities
- The observation of this experiment requires an 'observer' - Otherwise you are back to nothing
- And again, nothing can not exist

edit on 16-3-2019 by AlienView because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: AlienView

The main reason for the delineation of the sexes is genetic recombination through meiosis. This is especially true when environments change or a disease is spreading through a population. Genetic recombination also allows for the removal of a deleterious mutation

Sexual reproduction can produce individuals who have an adaptation that makes them more suited for the new environment or are immune to the disease will pass those genes on and the species will continue.
Aesexual reproduction, however, creates identical copies with no variation.


Makes perfect sense - Almost as though it was 'designed' to happen that way - Maybe even 'Intelligent Design'


Keep up the good work - Maybe one day in a hypothetical parallel universe you will convince the hypothetical
gods of creation that the experiment is working after all - And then the genie will reveal himself - Just maybe......

The universe did really begin with the pure light of an intelligence most Humans are only capable of
imagining, but not understanding



But you see you can't really have it two ways - Either the existent state reflects an existent intelligence
- Or the existent state reflects 'nothing' - But just remember - nothing can not exist


Ready to evolve one step further Human




- AlienView




There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.


'Nature' ? - What is that?

'help develop' - Nature as a developer - what does that mean? - Why would so-called nature develop anything?
What are the forces, motivations, and reasons for nature to be in the development business?

'and plenty of time' - How much time? - Will the same length of time and resousces produce the same results?
- If not, why not/ - If so, it is intelligent design - It is science by design - Design defining and explaining science.
Science showing the design - And the all impotant 'observer' making it real.


'natural selection /adaptation take its course' - What course? - Why? - Why produce beings that will go extinct?

Sounds like an experiment to me - But by who? - Nature is not who - Who is a conscious entity.

Intelligent Design says nature is being manipulated by conscious will - Even if the coscious will reserved
the right to experiment - Random, what you call natural, selection is not completely random or natural,
- Though it occures in a natural matrix - and the experiment allows for choice and different possibilities
- The observation of this experiment requires an 'observer' - Otherwise you are back to nothing
- And again, nothing can not exist


You are desperately twisting my words to get the ideas you want to hear. But it's still just your opinion.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView


Evolution cant explain it. The male/female thing is so indicative of intelligent design as to baffle the mind as to what sort of intellect wrestles against its obvious truth.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AlienView


Evolution cant explain it. The male/female thing is so indicative of intelligent design as to baffle the mind as to what sort of intellect wrestles against its obvious truth.



Yet you fail to explain why it's so obvious. The natural sequence of biological evolution of genders has already been explained in perfectly reasonable terms. Intelligent design is just adding extra steps to a process that works fine without a designer.
edit on 16-3-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is no need for male/female in evolution. Evolution would have all creatures a-sexual in reproduction. There would have been no pressure to morph if species could reproduce a-sexually which is exactly what life would have to do to survive. Even the genetic dispositions in male and female demonstrate the profound design of higher intelligence, a reflection of the spiritual.

Evolution is the biggest scam and the most profound intellectual distortion perpetrated on mankind.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.


There's no observable evidence that an asexual organism could develop a male organ, or a female organ. Let alone the necessity of having to have them both evolve at the same time!!

Do you understand this?

Even if a male organ evolved against all odds, and against the possibilities we observe in a lab, you would still need the female organ to develop at the same time, otherwise the male has nothing to mate with and vice versa.

For this reason it is obviously impossible by conventional material means..


Perhaps gastropods, would not be agreeable to those ideas being: ..."...obviously impossible..."... ?



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is no need for male/female in evolution. Evolution would have all creatures a-sexual in reproduction. There would have been no pressure to morph if species could reproduce a-sexually which is exactly what life would have to do to survive. Even the genetic dispositions in male and female demonstrate the profound design of higher intelligence, a reflection of the spiritual.

Evolution is the biggest scam and the most profound intellectual distortion perpetrated on mankind.



Sexual reproduction between two genders is about recombining genetic material to more successfully propogate a species which has evolved to use that mechanism.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

Perhaps gastropods, would not be agreeable to those ideas being: ..."...obviously impossible..."... ?


Gastropods have both male and female sex organs. The dilemma remains. If there is only a male organ without a female organ, then the male organ is useless. There is no way it would persist until another miracle occurred giving rise to all the necessities of a female sex organ.

Seriously, think about it.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

Sexual reproduction between two genders is about recombining genetic material to more successfully propogate a species which has evolved to use that mechanism.


You didn't understand Logarock's response. Asexual organisms have plenty of mechanisms to allow relevant alleles to persists. Look at horizontal gene transfer for example. There was no necessity of sexual dichotomy besides a clear resemblance of higher spiritual intelligence.
edit on 16-3-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Perhaps gastropods, would not be agreeable to those ideas being: ..."...obviously impossible..."... ?


Gastropods have both male and female sex organs. The dilemma remains. If there is only a male organ without a female organ, then the male organ is useless. There is no way it would persist until another miracle occurred giving rise to all the necessities of a female sex organ.

Seriously, think about it.


originally posted by: TzarChasm

Sexual reproduction between two genders is about recombining genetic material to more successfully propogate a species which has evolved to use that mechanism.


You didn't understand Logarock's response. Asexual organisms have plenty of mechanisms to allow relevant alleles to persists. Look at horizontal gene transfer for example. There was no necessity of sexual dichotomy besides a clear resemblance of higher spiritual intelligence.


Incorrect. Mammals reproduce sexually as a means of debugging genetic material as well as allowing new combinations of genetic samples to further the species or generate a new one entirely. There is no basis for making any claim about resembling a higher power. You're welcome to elaborate on that part, indeed I would request you do so, because it's quite a leap in logic.



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Try this - You may find it interesing:


"Darwin's Biology of Intelligent Design"


"The University of Chicago Published on May 21, 2010

The iconic Darwin to whom most contemporary biologists look, including several of my colleagues at this conference, is not identical to the historical Darwin, the author of the Origin of Species. The iconic Darwin produced a theory that is non-progressivist and abandons all teleological assumptions about biological development. For this symbolic Darwin, natural selection operates mechanically to effect only opportunistic alterations, and so the evolutionary process lacks any directional force. Unlike the nature of old, guided by Divine intent, neo-Darwinian nature has no purpose. I believe the historical Darwin to be quite other than his neo-Darwinian Doppelganger. The historical Darwin constructed nature as displaying intelligent forethought; and he conceived natural selection to operate with purpose, ultimately to produce moral individuals, namely us. He thus construed evolution to be progressive, attaining ever higher levels of perfection, culminating in advanced civilization. Why have we thought otherwise? Because of a certain view about the nature of theories and because of neo-Darwinian predilections. The creative and ahistorical misreading of Darwin has, as a result, been quite advantageous to the development of modern science".
darwin-chicago.uchicago.edu...



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: TzarChasm


There is no need for male/female in evolution. Evolution would have all creatures a-sexual in reproduction. There would have been no pressure to morph if species could reproduce a-sexually which is exactly what life would have to do to survive. Even the genetic dispositions in male and female demonstrate the profound design of higher intelligence, a reflection of the spiritual.

Evolution is the biggest scam and the most profound intellectual distortion perpetrated on mankind.



Ignoring all of the valid evidence where qaudrillions of distinct species, have always reproduced those exact same species, over thousands of years, is called the science of 'Evolution'!

A theory for flying pink elephants makes for better 'science', than 'evolution' science ever will!

Millions of years ago, elephants were pink, and had wings - look at all these fossils of them, they really existed once!

So prove me wrong, all the scientists agree with me! Look at all the thousands of papers they've written, which supports the flying pink elephant theory!! Are they not experts? Sure. You are no expert, so I win the argument here!

Man, I never knew how easy it was to create a new 'science', out of nothing!!

edit on 17-3-2019 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I can't tell if you are being serious or satirical.



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: TzarChasm

Try this - You may find it interesing:


"Darwin's Biology of Intelligent Design"


"The University of Chicago Published on May 21, 2010

The iconic Darwin to whom most contemporary biologists look, including several of my colleagues at this conference, is not identical to the historical Darwin, the author of the Origin of Species. The iconic Darwin produced a theory that is non-progressivist and abandons all teleological assumptions about biological development. For this symbolic Darwin, natural selection operates mechanically to effect only opportunistic alterations, and so the evolutionary process lacks any directional force. Unlike the nature of old, guided by Divine intent, neo-Darwinian nature has no purpose. I believe the historical Darwin to be quite other than his neo-Darwinian Doppelganger. The historical Darwin constructed nature as displaying intelligent forethought; and he conceived natural selection to operate with purpose, ultimately to produce moral individuals, namely us. He thus construed evolution to be progressive, attaining ever higher levels of perfection, culminating in advanced civilization. Why have we thought otherwise? Because of a certain view about the nature of theories and because of neo-Darwinian predilections. The creative and ahistorical misreading of Darwin has, as a result, been quite advantageous to the development of modern science".
darwin-chicago.uchicago.edu...


I prefer wikipedia. They have a really organized and extensive bibliography, easy accessible records for materials and methods, and they provide direct citations for their quotes. And they don't depend on YouTube videos to do their talking for them.
edit on 17-3-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Perhaps gastropods, would not be agreeable to those ideas being: ..."...obviously impossible..."... ?


Gastropods have both male and female sex organs. The dilemma remains. If there is only a male organ without a female organ, then the male organ is useless. There is no way it would persist until another miracle occurred giving rise to all the necessities of a female sex organ.

Seriously, think about it.


Thanks for the reply Coope.
Was considering it a bit differently.

Am not sure how gastropods 'supposedly' evolved.
But thought that it might be pertinent, because of the possibility that a species could evolve, (if species do evolve), from a self-replicating, self-reproducing organisms, to slowly developing different sexual organs, while still self-reproducing, until they reach the stage where the ones that reproduce via the opposing organs, become stronger, and/or more diverse, and eventually the hermaphrodites die-out.

(Man that was a long sentence! Sorry.)

Gastropods exist, so why not?

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely: opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

Thanks for the reply Coope.
Was considering it a bit differently.

Am not sure how gastropods 'supposedly' evolved.
But thought that it might be pertinent, because of the possibility that a species could evolve, (if species do evolve), from a self-replicating, self-reproducing organisms, to slowly developing different sexual organs, while still self-reproducing, until they reach the stage where the ones that reproduce via the opposing organs, become stronger, and/or more diverse, and eventually the hermaphrodites die-out.

(Man that was a long sentence! Sorry.)

Gastropods exist, so why not?

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely: opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).


Yeah we were trained from a young age in elementary biology classes to perceive everything from an evolutionary lens. "It exists, therefore evolution must have done it". This fallacy assumes evolution is true, and tries to fit everything under that scope, when it actuality the observable evidence in a lab does not give us any reason to believe that such leaps would be possible.

To scope-in on the gastropod, it would have needed both male and female organs still to reproduce in the manner that it does. Think how hard it would be even to create a male snail sex organ by random chance... and this is a snail we're talking about, a relatively simple organism:

take for example on the cellular level. You would need a male sex cell and a female sex cell (each contain half the genetic material of regular non-sex cells), which are formed by the process of meiosis. So here's the first hurdle from asexual to sexual reproduction.. where does meiosis come from? Even if an organism does manage to somehow manifest the many proteins required for meiosis, what is even directing these sex cells in the right place?? For example, If meiosis happened in the eyes that would be horrible for the organism. So the gastropod would have needed a new appendage (male sex organ) along with the necessary microcellular mechanisms to create sex cells.

That is just the very basics, and even that is such a long shot, it would be unimaginable to reproduce in a lab, because we have had nothing even close to demonstrating that such a leap would be possible. But let's say for argument sake that a miracle happens and we have a fully functioning male sex organ... We would still need the counterpart female sex organ - immediately, because a male organ is useless without the female organ. The female organ would need cellular meiotic eggs that would have some sort of way of rejecting foreign debris while still being able to recognize the male gamete (sex cell).

None of this has ever been observed in a lab: the leap from mitosis to meiosis (in a formerly non-meiotic organism), or the leap from no sexual organ to a sexual organ, and especially not the simultaneous development of both!! Evolution is therefore far out of the realm of possibility



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Thanks for the reply Coope.
Was considering it a bit differently.

Am not sure how gastropods 'supposedly' evolved.
But thought that it might be pertinent, because of the possibility that a species could evolve, (if species do evolve), from a self-replicating, self-reproducing organisms, to slowly developing different sexual organs, while still self-reproducing, until they reach the stage where the ones that reproduce via the opposing organs, become stronger, and/or more diverse, and eventually the hermaphrodites die-out.

(Man that was a long sentence! Sorry.)

Gastropods exist, so why not?

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely: opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).


Yeah we were trained from a young age in elementary biology classes to perceive everything from an evolutionary lens. "It exists, therefore evolution must have done it". This fallacy assumes evolution is true, and tries to fit everything under that scope, when it actuality the observable evidence in a lab does not give us any reason to believe that such leaps would be possible.

To scope-in on the gastropod, it would have needed both male and female organs still to reproduce in the manner that it does. Think how hard it would be even to create a male snail sex organ by random chance... and this is a snail we're talking about, a relatively simple organism:

take for example on the cellular level. You would need a male sex cell and a female sex cell (each contain half the genetic material of regular non-sex cells), which are formed by the process of meiosis. So here's the first hurdle from asexual to sexual reproduction.. where does meiosis come from? Even if an organism does manage to somehow manifest the many proteins required for meiosis, what is even directing these sex cells in the right place?? For example, If meiosis happened in the eyes that would be horrible for the organism. So the gastropod would have needed a new appendage (male sex organ) along with the necessary microcellular mechanisms to create sex cells.

That is just the very basics, and even that is such a long shot, it would be unimaginable to reproduce in a lab, because we have had nothing even close to demonstrating that such a leap would be possible. But let's say for argument sake that a miracle happens and we have a fully functioning male sex organ... We would still need the counterpart female sex organ - immediately, because a male organ is useless without the female organ. The female organ would need cellular meiotic eggs that would have some sort of way of rejecting foreign debris while still being able to recognize the male gamete (sex cell).

None of this has ever been observed in a lab: the leap from mitosis to meiosis (in a formerly non-meiotic organism), or the leap from no sexual organ to a sexual organ, and especially not the simultaneous development of both!! Evolution is therefore far out of the realm of possibility



You're comparing an invertebrate slug to mammalian biology to prove that sexual reproduction is an example of intelligent design at work? Please tell me you have something a little more compelling than "we've never observed mitosis to meiosis evolution" because personally I've never observed a talking snake, omniscient flagrant bush or magical knowledge giving fruit but I'm no biology expert. Just seems like the examples you provided don't stretch my imagination the same way given documented adaptation by species currently observed and recorded around the world. Peppered moths, three toed skinks, Italian wall lizards and rat snakes, etc. Just a few immediate samples of evolution that are thoroughly studied and analyzed as opposed to certain other phenomena of a supernatural bent that defy all methods of investigation and measurement.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
But you see you can't really have it two ways - Either the existent state reflects an existent intelligence
- Or the existent state reflects 'nothing' - But just remember - nothing can not exist



Allow me to correct you.

The existent state would not reflect intelligence. That does not mean it reflects, "nothing." It might just be what is. Same exact thing we already discussed above.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

There's no indication that nature needed any help developing the meiosis process beyond its own resources and plenty of time to let natural selection/adaptation take its course.


There's no observable evidence that an asexual organism could develop a male organ, or a female organ. Let alone the necessity of having to have them both evolve at the same time!!

Do you understand this?

Even if a male organ evolved against all odds, and against the possibilities we observe in a lab, you would still need the female organ to develop at the same time, otherwise the male has nothing to mate with and vice versa.

For this reason it is obviously impossible by conventional material means..


Sexual reproduction came long before sex organs. You are the one that does not understand this.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
There is no need for male/female in evolution. Evolution would have all creatures a-sexual in reproduction.


Nope. Sexual reproduction offers more genetic diversity, which offers better long term survival.



Evolution is the biggest scam and the most profound intellectual distortion perpetrated on mankind.


You spelled religion wrong.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Sexual reproduction came long before sex organs. You are the one that does not understand this.


You see this is what you do when i present empirical dilemmas to evolution. You just refer to baseless evolutionary theory dogma as if it is from a position of infallible authority. What are you even referring to? What organism exhibits sexual reproduction without sexual organs? Your faith is astonishing. Even plants have sexual organs. Your blind belief comes from your inability to understand the persistent biological dilemmas presented to evolutionary theory. You refuse to discuss actual biology because your theory relies on ignorance.

quote]originally posted by: TzarChasm

You're comparing an invertebrate slug to mammalian biology to prove that sexual reproduction is an example of intelligent design at work?

It was someone else who had brought up gastropods as an example. But yeah, mammalian sex organs are wayyy more complex than gastropod sex organs. So if gastropod sex organs are beyond any logical explanation for evolutionary theory to suffice, mammalian sex organs are even more beyond any logical explanation for evolutionary theory.

Care to discuss the biology? Please, seriously, please, respond to the actual biology. Do not divert and distract. Actually discuss real empirical observable evidence from a logical perspective. Or continue to blindly believe a theory that is not based in reality.




top topics



 
15
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join