a question for evolutionists, page 2

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

---

No, it was a slow progression of the nose moving from the front of the face to the top of the head.

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

those examples arent evolution though..that is the creature adapting to its surroundings..moving to another location if it is being threatened..that doesnt make it evolve..and if primates were so threatened they had to start living it trees..how long were they able to do that without the opposable thumbs they happened to need..that evolution says would happen over a long period of time..

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

We never stop being animated

Well then What is dead if not inanimate. respectivly.

reply to post by resonance

---

If you read my post would of known I explained this already. Two cells merged and created a larger more complex cell.

reply to post by alpha-erectus

---

i am not ignorant at all..nor am i a "follower of organized religion" i am a christian..but i dont attend church..the christian religion has been heavily perverted in this country..i do my own study..but i am just searching for the truth..i study all kinds of science too..and yes organized religion is terrible..especially now days..i dont think god ever wanted it the way it is today

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

how did they merge?

line 2

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

They sure did. Everything that drives evolution is over resources. It takes a lot of energy to raise a kid on the inside. On the outside however, you just have to sit on it. Making it easier to abandon in times of lean.

[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..

If you want the sex talk then you need to talk to your parents.

reply to post by resonance

---

Some would argue with me but completely by accident. Or the primordial pond wasn't big enough.

OR

the most likely reason is one ate another. to gather energy.

I think these discussions emulate what Christians or creationists can't handle the most,t he idea that things have occurred by accident. Then it negates the reason for existence.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by randyvs
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 ostrich
and a human and a hippo. Probably even less .huh

*Sigh* An unfertilized egg is considered an Ova. An ovum (plural ova, from the Latin word ovum meaning egg or egg cell) is a haploid female reproductive cell or gamete. Both animals and embryophytes have ova. The term ovule is used for the young ovum of an animal, as well as the plant structure that carries the female gametophyte and egg cell and develops into a seed after fertilization. In lower plants and algae, the ovum is also often called oosphere.(source)

So there is NO difference in UNfertilized eggs, did someone really have to ask this question?





[edit on 6-11-2009 by nuffsaid420]

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

bud..things cant just want or need something..so it happens to happen..also if its over a long time..if they need it that badly how did they manage to not die out..it just doesnt add up..if evolution now says it occurs because of a battle over resources..the drastic changes in different species are not explained by that..yes..certain types of evolution can..but one species to another is not supported by that..

reply to post by resonance

---

es...since evolution says life began as a single cell..which had to reproduce asexually.

I see no reason to assume that the first cellular life had to reproduce asexually. I also see no reason to assume that only one form of cellular life gave rise to all life. There does appear to be three distinct types of life on our planet.

how did cells/whatever ever start producing sexually..and the first one to "evolve" with that ability.

Good question, one that most likely will never get answered because unfortunately for us, cellular life that far back isn't a good candidate for fossilization. For all we know, there were many different novel forms of life that simply didn't make it to this day and age.

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

Asking what it mated with is like assuming it was the only cell that evolved the trait, which is erroneous. Like I said, there is no reason to assume that asexual reproduction preceded sexual production. Nor would chance really have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist, it's an abstracted concept, not a physical reality.

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

The only problem I see with the first life question is that we don't have any examples of it because they aren't good candidates for fossilization. We can speculate and abstract backwards and take an educated guess based on the most primitive of cellular life that exists today, but that's all it will ever be, an educated guess. We can also attempt to discover how cellular life can arise naturally by testing various hypothesis and see what works, but we would have to spend a lot of time experimenting before we ever get to a conclusive answer. The other problem is knowing what Earth's early condition were, without knowing that it becomes even harder to figure out the exact process that underwent on our planet to give rise to life. There are a lot of unknown variables involved here that most likely will never be known because those variables are lost through four billion years of constant change on our planet.

reply to post by randyvs

---

I already know where you are taking this. I am going to tell you that inanimate means that there is no electrical responses taking place leaving tissue and brain lifeless. Without electrical current,t he brain and person is gone.

Then you are going to ask well what started the first life. Thinking that I won't be able to answer so that you can apply that it is God.

It could ver well be God. I say it was Zeus with a ligthening bolt.

reply to post by ChemBreather

---

It depends on how you view evolutionary change. Evolutionary change from one species to another doesn't inherently imply that it *must look different*. If you take the time to understand the modern discoveries and theory, you'll find a lot of evidence for evolutionary changes today. LINK

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

Here's an example of a time I pulled my head out of The Bible.
Above Top Secret....

I already know where you are taking this. I am going to tell you that inanimate means that there is no electrical responses taking place leaving tissue and brain lifeless. Without electrical current,t he brain and person is gone.

WRONG



[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by sirnex

---

"I see no reason to assume that the first cellular life had to reproduce asexually. I also see no reason to assume that only one form of cellular life gave rise to all life. There does appear to be three distinct types of life on our planet."

...cells do not mate to form other cells though..mitosis and meiosis are cell division..a splitting..not a combination..that is what im not understanding..how did they begin to start combining and giving off offspring

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nixie_nox

---

Without electrical current,t he brain and person is gone.

WRONG
[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]

Saying WRONG doesn't make you RIGHT. Can you please back up by citing any contrary evidence against what was said?

reply to post by sirnex

---

Saying WRONG doesn't make you RIGHT. Can you please back up by citing any contrary evidence against what was said?

No problem, she said she new where I was taking this and if you would just click on the link you will see that she was

WRONG
I would like to suggest you Gals all settle down.
Maybe worry about where your heads are at.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: