Evolution and Sex.

a reply to: moebius

My problem
My problem is someone asked a reasonable question and you pretended you had an answer
My problem is you didn’t answer the question, under intellectualised and acted like you knew something clever when clearly you didn’t, not only didn’t, you answered a question wrong and a question not even asked

My problem, you tried to make yourself look clever at someone else’s expense when all you were doing was displaying ignorance

That’s my problem moeb

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: moebiusMy problem is someone asked a reasonable question and you pretended you had an answer

A reasonable question? The post reads like an ignorant rant against evolution to me. And that is why I chose to adress the fish analogy instead.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry Bo, I don’t get it
Many people believe we come from apes or whatever the believe now
Think they are smart

I don’t have an issue with that statement
I don’t see why it’s so vile

Poorly written, poorly structured, poor explained but vile?
Everything about evolution is vile in my opinion

Fair enough. My idea of "vile" doesn't have to be your idea of "vile." I'll own it. No one else has to.

I don’t understand your reaction, thought I would ask

And you're always welcome to do so. Can't promise you'll like my answers though...

As for a hermaphrodite conceiving their own child, a both male and female individual conceiving from within, sounds a bit Strange

Yes, quite strange! When I first heard about such things, I had it in my head that sex was determined shortly after conception by the sperm, and of course that it was either male or female. It really blew my mind on many levels. I was also intrigued by the Guevedoces -- literally translated as "penis at 12" -- who appear anatomically female from birth to about 12 years old, when they develop a penis. I have never been able to find an answer to whether or not they had male or female internal reproductive organs which also changed with external organs; and if so, is it possible they have self-reproducing capabilities -- if only temporarily (during the transition). Learning about XXY and XYY and other chromosomal variations takes it to a whole 'nother level.

a reply to: TheSkunk

I guess that you have already received numerous replies attempting to answer your question or to set you straight so I will not jump on that bandwagon. I'm just chiming in to say I like your writing style. It was enjoyable to read.

Yeah you're starting to pick up on the blatant impossibilities of evolutionary theory. Notice how you have been given no actual logical answer, except that laughable "you need to go research evolution more"... as if there was an answer to the dilemma you presented. But there is no explanation. I made an article about chromosomal number change, which has never been witnessed in history, yet would be required constantly throughout evolution. This 1 in an infinity chance of an organism having a viable chromosome change mutation would have to be met by a mate that also had the same impossible mutation occur.

Evolution is over. It's only a matter of time until it dies out, people just need to continue to analyze the logistics of it and realize it is not possible.

My two cents...

It takes a long time for environment to initiate hereditary change in living creatures. Whatever the catalyst, the change occurs over a period of time to a vast portion of the species, if not in its entirety. Instead of one pair of fish walking on to land the first time its thousands, or millions. Each of those will encounter environments that may initiate a hereditary change that differs from other creatures which eventually leads us to the diversity of fauna we presently enjoy. These hereditary changes were not gender specific, though genders may experience different versions of these hereditary changes for purposes of creating more viable offspring. The goal is ultimately survival of the species, even if it means evolving into completely different species. Its still survival.

The biggest thing I have noticed is that once people begin to have sex their brains stop growing. Devolution.

originally posted by: cooperton
This 1 in an infinity chance of an organism having a viable chromosome change mutation would have to be met by a mate that also had the same impossible mutation occur.

Your post made me actually look into the topic. And guess what. Hybrids from closely related species can produce offspring that are fertile.

It happens with plants. Certain related species of rodents and frogs have been observed producing fertile hybrids.
When hybrids are fertile

Apparently we have the technology to make frogs gay, and Eve came from Adam's rib.

a reply to: carsforkids

Yes, it's called planet earth. It's happening right now! Look out!

a reply to: strongfp

Cheese and rice that thing almost hit me! But it went right on by.

Right now where on oith?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
My two cents...

It takes a long time for environment to initiate hereditary change in living creatures. Whatever the catalyst, the change occurs over a period of time to a vast portion of the species, if not in its entirety. Instead of one pair of fish walking on to land the first time its thousands, or millions. Each of those will encounter environments that may initiate a hereditary change that differs from other creatures which eventually leads us to the diversity of fauna we presently enjoy. These hereditary changes were not gender specific, though genders may experience different versions of these hereditary changes for purposes of creating more viable offspring. The goal is ultimately survival of the species, even if it means evolving into completely different species. Its still survival.

Though, here in lies another problem...

Let's say we go back to one point where a clump of cells form a creature that asexual reproduces compared to a creature that requires both male and female to do so.

Differences are, Asexual reproduces copies of itself. Doesn't appear to pick up new negative DNA that can destroy it - say like cancer for instance. It just keeps reproducing without evolving unless it needs a change. Changes should be able to come by way of evolution while still reproducing asexually.

Sexual reproduction creates new 'things' that share DNA from both parents so any defects would chance becoming an issue if mated with another 'thing' with similar defects.

Evolution seems like it would take the path of asexual reproduction since it makes more sense for evolving in a specific way and assuring the parents always produces something that will also be strong instead of chancing the weaker genes by mating sexually with a busted up life form. Not to mention, why is cancer even a thing? Evolution should have overcome that little problem billions of years ago, wouldn't ya think? Same with Viruses, bacteria, prions and the like. We should be invulnerable if this is the purpose of evolution.


I get that at some point, clumps of cells were supposed to have come together to form 'something' because of evolution but it would make more sense just to stay single celled for survival's sake.

Why so many species of birds, lizards, snakes, turtles, fish? Their geography make a difference? I suppose but you have so many different types of the same species in the same place. Yet.... Only one species of human exists today.

I really can't follow a 'missing link' on just a couple pieces of bone that could have been the anal bone of the great white Wikidodus Plubarable Nox.

What the hell are you still trolling for. So no one can give you a definitive answer to sex.
So come on with your explanation of intelligent design already. God did it.

a reply to: TheSkunk
I always found it odd that life depends on another to propagate. Every thing from flowers to insects to mammals.
When did this sex thing appear? Very odd for mother nature to of come up with this system.

a reply to: Raggedyman

We get it, you hate evolution because it challenges your belief in God. No need to be rude .

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

We get it, you hate evolution because it challenges your belief in God. No need to be rude

.

No, I hate ignorance and irrelevant replies

Care to offer a reasonable solution

originally posted by: crayzeed
What the hell are you still trolling for. So no one can give you a definitive answer to sex.
So come on with your explanation of intelligent design already. God did it.

This is where your beliefs fail
I can be a Christian and accept evolution, but you

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: crayzeed
What the hell are you still trolling for. So no one can give you a definitive answer to sex.
So come on with your explanation of intelligent design already. God did it.

This is where your beliefs fail
I can be a Christian and accept evolution, but you

Then you're not a real christian if you cannot accept your own religion's origin. It's called hypocricy because you want the best of both worlds perhaps.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: crayzeed
What the hell are you still trolling for. So no one can give you a definitive answer to sex.
So come on with your explanation of intelligent design already. God did it.

This is where your beliefs fail
I can be a Christian and accept evolution, but you

Then you're not a real christian if you cannot accept your own religion's origin. It's called hypocricy because you want the best of both worlds perhaps.

If you want, hardly relevant your opinion of me
Your theology?

Or are you saying that every single Christian who doesn’t believe in creation is not a Christian
Stench of arrogance and self righteousness

Think before posting, such a arrogant thing to say

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: cooperton
This 1 in an infinity chance of an organism having a viable chromosome change mutation would have to be met by a mate that also had the same impossible mutation occur.

Your post made me actually look into the topic. And guess what. Hybrids from closely related species can produce offspring that are fertile.

It happens with plants. Certain related species of rodents and frogs have been observed producing fertile hybrids.
When hybrids are fertile

That's not a chromosome number change though. The vast differences in chromosome number among animals, plants, microbes, etc indicate that if evolution were true then chromosomal number change must have been common. But we have never observed it happening ever. What makes it even more challenging is that such an occurrence of a chromosome number change, if, against all odds, happened, and was also viable, it would also need to find a mate with the same super unlikely viable chromosome count change. Apply biological observations and limitations to the theory of evolution and you eventually realize it is not plausible.