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.

 

a question for evolutionists

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
ok so my question

firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..

also, how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body

the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood

help me understand what evolution says about these things




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Give them a few minutes. I'm sure they have to go consult their guru, Richard Dawkins. If you want to see them work up an answer, go watch the discussion on his website. I'm sure they will come up with some 1 in 100000000000000000000000000 chance answer, and they will all swear it's true!



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
haha i agree...i mean i was watchin a doctor show and umbilical cord came up and i was like whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
If any such happened, it did not happen on Earth, and it was sooooo long ago that your mind could never grasp it.

Very likely each species developed its own combination of electrons etc.,according to its own matrix, and none changed into something else.
There is still much speculation on changeing lead into gold, but no one is doing it. They do have in common the general density.

I suppose you think that some invisible "god" snapped its fingers and "shazaaam!" there sat the fully formed creature.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Sorry resonance...

lets keep making up explainations, much better that way !!



' it is the way evolution works, things just happen'...


[edit on 6/11/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
please stick to the topic of the thread and dont poke fun..im trying to find this information out...evolution is supposedly true so id love to hear an explanation on the things i asked



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I thought evolution was pretty much done around here.
I'm still waiting for them to explain the moment something becomes
animated. As in what causes tissue to go from inanimate to animated.
Maybe we can add that to your questions.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
ok so my question

firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..


Really all mating is the combination of genes. But the start of life is still the same, the division of cells. Some things still haven't changed since the start of time. The division of cells in a bag of water. How that exacte division from asexual division to cells having to exchange is not know, at least not to mean. doesn't mean someone else hasn't figured it out. But I assume that two cells merged together to make a bigger cell. The combination of genetics made a freaky cell(or I should say an amoeba type creature) that worked.


lso, how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body
It all started as eggs being made in the body. Again, some things never changed. Some decided to raise those eggs on the outside, from dinosaurs on down. And others had those eggs incubate and grow in the womb, like the mammals.But both are the same. The fetus is raised in a capsul.

If you look at pictures of very new fetuses, you can hardly tell a human from an ostrich from a hippo. They all look the same.




the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood

Yes, because there was already a line of mammals, that already had umbilical cords. Guess what, eggs have an umbilical cord too. It is a sac of nutrients that the fetus absorbs while developing. The egg is a neat package that comes with one. In mammals, it is attached to the the package itself. this seems to be more of the successful forms of reproduction, as the fetus is protected inside the host, and has a longer more abundant supply of oxygen and nutrients. While an egg is limited and kept outside of the body where it needs much more external protection. Which is probably why mammals rule.


help me understand what evolution says about these things



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I wonder about how one single cell can grow into multiple others, like from amoeba (?) the fisrt intelligent lifefrom(atleast some form of life) , to liver-cells, kidney-cells etc.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You know folks, a lot of this is just some common sense and critical thinking. Maybe if you actually stopped to think about it instead of criticizing or reading a bible, you wouldn't have to ask.
also makes you more armed for a debate.


We never stop being animated. We never stop living. To say that we are "inanimated" tissue would mean that we would start off as dead tissue, which isn't possible.

it is called the female egg. which is a live cell. Women are full of these LIVE animated cells. when fertilized, it turns in to a live zygot that immediately starts splitting.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Another question to add.

How did whales go from mouth connected to lungs, to lungs connected to the blowhole and only to the blowhole.
That must have been a painful watery transition for the whales ancestors.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by BlubberyConspiracy]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


"Some decided to raise those eggs on the outside, from dinosaurs on down."

they decided to? so they got to choose? not evolution..sorry

and most of your explanations..were not evolution..all you did was explain the differences..you did not explain how these things came to be separate forms of reproduction...which i highly doubt evolution can..



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 


I'm no evolutionist but I'll give it a shot. These are very good questions btw and I doubt any but a few actual college educated evolutionists even know the answers.

Evolution of sex likely has to do with the benefits of genetic differentiation. A creature that reproduces asexually can only make copies of itself (for the most part) and this creates a sameness while sexual reproduction creates more genetic variation and therefore a greater chance at survival. For instance, if a disease comes along affecting those asexual organisms it might kill them all off because they are all copies while a genetically diverse population (created by sexual reproduction) wouldn't be likely to all die off. I'm not sure when the development took place but, like most evolutionary adaptations, it took place over time and was intended to help the survival of the organisms by creating genetic variation.

Eggs aren't very different from live birth at all. Again I'm no evolutionist but I'd guess that when mammals first evolved and branched off from the bird/dinosaur/reptile line they left egg laying behind. Evolution of Mammals

There are still many unanswered questions but them being unanswered does not mean "God did it" is the answer it merely means more information is needed to fill the gaps scientifically.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
By the way resonance I do think you are asking interesting inquisitive questions. They are good points. I like it when people actually think about the way the world works.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



firstly how does evolution explain things changing from reproducing asexually to reproducing sexually...what did the first thing that reproduced sexually mate with..


First, your assuming that the first life on our planet reproduced asexually. There is no reason to consider this to be the case and we have no evidence that this was the case. Unless your talking about the first self replicating molecule that eventually lead to cellular life?


also, how did it come about that various species give birth in different ways..inside the body, outside the body


It would depend on where they survive I suppose or what species they descended from.


the first human-esque creature, did it have an umbilical cord, if not how did the offspring get the nutrient rich blood


I would assume it did, if I'm not mistaken most if not all mammal species do have a umbilical cord and placenta. We're the only species I know of that cuts it off rather than chew it off. Yet I have heard of some people who keep the placenta to eat, my wife and I are considering it!



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





If you look at pictures of very new fetuses, you can hardly tell a human from an ostrich from a hippo. They all look the same

So I wonder how much difference between unfertilised eggs of an ostric a human and a hippo. Probably even less .huh, Oh and please excuse me for not making use of the word ovum.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
A question for followers of organised religion.


Why are you all so ignorant?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


"Some decided to raise those eggs on the outside, from dinosaurs on down."

they decided to? so they got to choose? not evolution..sorry

and most of your explanations..were not evolution..all you did was explain the differences..you did not explain how these things came to be separate forms of reproduction...which i highly doubt evolution can..


Oh your one of those.


"fighting over resources caused the whale to go from a land animal to hunt for food in the water"

but that is not evolution

"competition for resources and to escape predators caused the primates to develope opposable thumbs to be able to live in trees"

but that is not evolution

Denying it and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. If that were the case, I wouldn't have any more bills.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


"First, your assuming that the first life on our planet reproduced asexually. There is no reason to consider this to be the case and we have no evidence that this was the case. Unless your talking about the first self replicating molecule that eventually lead to cellular life?"

yes...since evolution says life began as a single cell..which had to reproduce asexually..how did cells/whatever ever start producing sexually..and the first one to "evolve" with that ability..what did it mate with...or i suppose you could say more than one "thing" evolved to that ability at the same time..but that would make the degree of chance drastically higher

if this question could be answered it would be much easier to grasp the others..but i dont know of a very good answer to this



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


hahahah more power too you sirnex. I know when my cat had kittens and my husband who didn't know a lick about animals had to deal with . The second question was, what do I do with the placenta?!?! I said: oh, don't worry about that, Isis(our cat) is going to eat it.

I heard a pause and then an ew.

but really, shame for all that nutrion to go to waste.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join