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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SatansPride

This isn't really how we know carbon is so prevelant but it is one of the ways. It's also by understanding the current cosmology models.




posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The reason reproduction is a bad indicator of life is simple there are plenty of things alive that cannot reproduce. For example worker ants. Nothing can be done to get them to reproduce. Since we know workers ants are alive and created by a different version of an ant we cant claim they arent alive. There is viruses that also cannot reproduce but are sometimes created. And as far as certain chemical compounds will create something that is similar to life but cant reproduce.

The three main things on a lifeform is it has to be able to move. The ability to detect changes in the surrounding environment. And Respiration which is a chemical reaction that happens within cells to release energy from food. If it meets these 3 its a lifeform.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I would also say if you believe life has to reproduce you by default believe in creationism. Otherwise there is no explainable way life could arise without a parent.

Of coarse maybe quantum entanglement and some kind of life particle we dont understand exists.
edit on 11-11-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I'll disagree with you on all counts. The worker ant came from another type of ant. It can't reproduce because it was born that way - it's an inherent feature of that ant's genes. But it didn't drop out of nowhere - it was born from another ant. That's reproduction.

Viruses have recently been reclassified as "alive" because they're now considered parasitic. A virus reproduces by hijacking the reproductive machinery of a live cell. Without the ability to reproduce, a virus would not exist.

How an organism reproduces is not the point. The point is that anything that's "alive" has some reproductive history whether or not it reproduces in the future.

Mitochondrial respiration, aerobic and anaerobic, only occurs in living organisms. Without energy, moving, detecting changes or whatever does not occur.

The fundamental feature of every living organism is reproduction. Without reproduction, nature would be a dead end street.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

DNA replicates itself. The DNA molecule is the "parent". What does that have to do with Creationism?



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: luthier

DNA replicates itself. The DNA molecule is the "parent". What does that have to do with Creationism?


No my friend DNA had to come from amino acid compounds by chance meeting and bonding to create self replication.

To say life arose from DNA is an utter lack of understanding of the big bang or any current cosmological model. Amino acids were formed...a few soon (not in human life terms) after the big bang.

Just to further another point we dont actually know what the laws of physics were around the big bang and we may just finally be settling on emergent gravity for instance. Life came from raw particles arranged by chance to create amino acids. Which are not life on their own.
edit on 11-11-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Evolution isn't perfect. But if you want to dig deep enough think of this. Even the most primitive stars needed more than one gas to create a star.
It took those stars to die for more complex stars to be born.

When we get to the level of biological, multi cellular entities theres more driving forces at hand than just death and life.
Even the most ancient of creatures like insects still have a Male and female, but females can produce asexually, thing is, they dont add any more genetic code and they just clone themselves.
Evolution works the way it does because that's how it evolved with the least amount of resistance, obviously somewhere down the line having Male and female worked, seems to work for humans, especially since we are a species that is mostly driven by sexual selection.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You can disagree all you want but reproduction is a poor indicator for life. For example, viruses are not considered to be alive as they have no independent metabolism.(remember the top 3 indicators i pointed out do not exist in viruses). They effectively reprogram the cells to use its own resources to replicate copies of the virus. So, its not really alive, but with a host cell's help, it can reproduce itself.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Where do you get that DNA is formed from amino acids? DNA is a polynucleotide. Amino acids are formed from peptides.
I think you have your sequence of events wrong.

I never said that life arose strictly from DNA. But it is fundamental to life as we know it.

And we don't know absolutely that life arose by chance or by a directed intervention - see my discussion with Cooperton here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're making statements that you can't backup with research. Try to be more specific to the question without digressing into the Big Bang.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
According to orthodox Darwinism, reality and evolution are anti teleological, ie without direction or meaning, hence an accident.


a reply to: AlienView



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well, there or may not be a “why.” But when people claim they know if there is or not, or what precisely it is, is when I question.

That’s when they step out of science and into philosophy and personal belief.

For the evolutionists on here, it is a belief not scientific fact that there is zero meaning or direction to the universe. Could be true, but you can neither test nor falsify that hypothesis given current constraints.

A lot of people including scientists don’t acknowledge when they’ve left the realm of verifiable science and walked into the realm of speculation. It’s totally fine to do so, but lay people need to know it’s beyond the envelope.

a reply to: Nothin



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Biology is the science concerned with the study of life. ... The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.


Which aspect of life is most important is a matter of opinion. But certainly without reproduction, nothing happens. NASA's definition of life is:



NASA defined life broadly as "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." While this definition is open enough to include a wide range of potential life forms, it also makes it hard to design a simple test for life.


Life as we know it has all the features that you describe. But if you were on another planet looking for life, what would be the first thing you would look for? Metabolism or a whole herd of creatures who are reproducing themselves. I'd go for reproduction because the organism itself may appear "dead" in our sense of the word, but still reproduce. If that were the case, is it alive or dead?



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I don't know where you're getting your information, but science doesn't work that way. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. An individual is free to interpret results any way they want, but a scientist is required to validate his/her results. That doesn't mean that there are no more questions to be asked. It simply means that the scientist asked a question, accumulated the data and drew some conclusion.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

What about robots? They perform all the functions you described albeit very differently from humans. Is it alive or just a machine?

Here's an interesting article to consider:

Will Future Robots be able to give Birth to Their Own Children?

www.futuristspeaker.com...

In the near future, dead or alive, machine vs living entity might be a much more difficult question.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Where do you get that DNA is formed from amino acids? DNA is a polynucleotide. Amino acids are formed from peptides. 
I think you have your sequence of events wrong. 


So basically you have no idea what you are talking about, what a peptide is, or a peptide bond comes from...

Nor how the compounds arose from the big bang and sequence of events that would create life from in organic compounds.


Got it

I can surely back up my statements.

What is a peptide? Hmm...



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier




I can surely back up my statements.


Then do it. How is DNA formed from a peptide or amino acid?



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Peptides are chains of amino acids.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You said DNA was made from amino acids:



No my friend DNA had to come from amino acid compounds by chance meeting and bonding to create self replication.


Prove it. With a citation please.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

It takes 2 or more amino acids to make a peptide.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Why don't you just answer the question: how is DNA formed from amino acids. If you can't answer the question, just say so - at this point, it seems the easiest way out of a mess for you.



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join