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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



...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


Actually, some single cellular life does reproduce sexually. LINK


Some bacteria can only reproduce sexually, with a male and female bacteria.


So again, it still stands that there is no reason to assume that asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction. Both forms of reproduction could have arisen around the same time separately.




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ah, I misunderstood. I assumed you were talking about what I quoted from them.

Second line.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 
umm yeeea ya did.
I suppose I should apologise.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


even if sexual reproduction preceded asexual... it doesnt explain why cells then changed to produce asexually or why didnt larger species produce asexually..that would be a much easier way than sexually to reproduce to keep a species alive...or if there was more than one type of life formed in whatever way evolutionists say it did (i know evolution doesnt adress that just saying) cells dont fertilize an egg...when did this come about and why..sexual reproduction among cells is different than among larger forms of life



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



even if sexual reproduction preceded asexual... it doesnt explain why cells then changed to produce asexually


Your assuming too much here. There is no reason to assume the above either, like I said both could have arose separately.


or why didnt larger species produce asexually..that would be a much easier way than sexually to reproduce to keep a species alive.


Some larger multicellular animals are capable of asexual reproduction as well. LINK


.or if there was more than one type of life formed in whatever way evolutionists say it did (i know evolution doesnt adress that just saying) cells dont fertilize an egg...when did this come about and why..sexual reproduction among cells is different than among larger forms of life


Can you reword that, I'm having trouble figuring out what your asking there.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


the sexual reproduction of cells is not like that of larger life forms...such as humans..it takes two of us to reproduce, we mate..the sperm fertilizes the egg and information from both is used in the offspring..meiosis (sexual reproduction in cells) is still a division and is still just a copy of the original..not the combining of 2 separate sets to make a different offspring..



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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


Great reading, the fish changes rapidly, still the same fish though.
Lose a spike there , crawl over land unless I missunderstood the 'migrated closer inland' part ...



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 

I think they went for reinforcements. Sorry OP but was I in anyway out of line ?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex
 


the sexual reproduction of cells is not like that of larger life forms...such as humans..it takes two of us to reproduce, we mate..the sperm fertilizes the egg and information from both is used in the offspring..meiosis (sexual reproduction in cells) is still a division and is still just a copy of the original..not the combining of 2 separate sets to make a different offspring..


Perhaps that previous sexually reproducing bacteria link didn't contain enough information on the process. Here is a new one. LINK


In bacterial sexual reproduction there is no meiosis, formation of gametes and zygote. Instead, it involves transfer of a portion of genetic material (DNA) from a donor cell to a recipient cell.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Like I said, depends on how you view evolution. If your expecting a bird to hatch a giraffe, then I suppose evolution never happens. Yet, if you pay attention to modern theory, it happens all the time.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


ok..im glad i read that because i needed a refresher in the different types of reproduction..this however still does not explain things...i guess the answer you have is just that when life came to be..however that was..that all these different types of reproduction existed in different forms of original life?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex
 


ok..im glad i read that because i needed a refresher in the different types of reproduction..this however still does not explain things...i guess the answer you have is just that when life came to be..however that was..that all these different types of reproduction existed in different forms of original life?


If I had to take a crack at guessing, then yes, I would assume they arose separately. There are currently three dominate forms of life on our planet right now, maybe four... I can't remember, but I do know it's definitely three. They all follow their own separate evolutionary paths.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by sirnex
 


even if sexual reproduction preceded asexual... it doesnt explain why cells then changed to produce asexually or why didnt larger species produce asexually..


It's actually likely that the earliest cells had the capability for both sexual (gene-mixing) and asexual (self-cloning) methods of reproduction. As for larger species reproducing asexually... Out in the American southwest, there are these critters - whiptail lizards. Some species of these lizards have absolutely no males. The populations are entirely female. Presumably this is due to a mutation somewhere along the line that resulted in their ova having a fully-fledged nucleus - they're born self-fertilized, and every egg they lay is a clone of themselves.

In theory, this sort of mutation could happen in mammals and birds as well. However it would probably die out quickly in placental mammals due to the difficulties in birth we have - falling pregnant with every ovulation would be a death sentence for anything with a womb.


that would be a much easier way than sexually to reproduce to keep a species alive...


It is, in fact, which is why the overwhelming vast majority of life on earth is capable of reproducing asexually - that would be bacteria, protists, fungi, and a lot of plants.

However, sexual reproduction results in a more robust genome with more variety and the potential for future generations to handle changing environments. It allows for poor genes to be "weeded out" and replaced with better ones.


sexual reproduction among cells is different than among larger forms of life


No it's not. In every organism in the world, sexual reproduction is identical. Two cells meet and trade or combine genetic material. That's all there is to it.

Animals just get to have more fun with it.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


A site from a christian site is still keeping your head in the Bible. Someone always tries to stick in a science minded site from a Christian group that tends to get shredded. I have seen this one before, and it is riddled with bad information.

Which is why you need to learn science from scientists.


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves



First the article tries to contest that since Dna is BIG and complicated, it couldn't of happend by accident. Despite so much information needed to be a map of life, there are only four letters involved.

Have any idea how much binary code is needed to make a program? yet, humans were able to do it, in a very short period of time too.

Did it happen by accident? No, people wanted computers. They made the code.

What I find so funny is that the article describes how much space DNA could fill. Yet, no one mentions that God, who is all powerful, all wise, all eternal, has one little book about a flood and 12 deciples.

The way I see it, it shoudl be switched.


The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.


While dna can be read like a book, a very long boring one. To compare it to a book is not a very good comparison. A book is not merged with another book to make a new book. Whcih is what happens to DNA when it is forced to emerge with another cell. If you had to merge two books you would have mistakes. And like evolution, you either have a read that you like or one that didn't. Which wouldn't sell very well and would never be seen again.


In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.


proof?


For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it


statements like these crack me up.

First off, if there is a screw up in the dna, the animal or plant simply can't exist. DNA code HAS to be flawless. You should read what little mistake it takes to make major repercutions.

Again, complexity has nothing to do with intelligent life.

You know no two snowflakes are alike. There is an infinite number of snowflakes that we can't even concieve formed each year. yet the basis of formation is simple, how the water freezes, and as the snowflake falls, the way the wind scores it. yet it is not indicative of intelligent life, just how nature works.

Evolution is extremely complicated in itself.When you actually study ecology, it is infinetly complicated, how things intereact and affect each other. So does that mean evolution itself is divine?

By the way, dna IS evolution. If dna makes a mistake you have a mutation. If the mutation works, that species continues. If not, that animal dies. And that is evolution.

The author tries to use sickle cell anemia. Yes, it is a disease carried by a gentic trait. What they fail to mention that though it is a disease, people with sickle cell have a much higher immunity to malaria.



. What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).


this stuff has to be made up. What??

Actually, once again this supports evolution. The continuation of a species. The cells that carry dna cannot bind with a totally different instruction set of dna. A giraffe cannot reproduce with a hippo.

So to say that mutations can't form a new creature is really kind of silly. In fact, if an orchid can produce a lion. NOW THAT would be the work of God.
Only compatible patterns fit.

DNA has made sure my house cat can't suddenly give birth to a pit bull.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
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]

I agree and have asked the same question. What is it that makes something alive? A while back some scientists thru everything that is in a human into a jar and electrified it and it came out as a goo. I don't think they expected life... they were just curious.
The LIFE FORCE (I don't know what else to call it) is very strange if you think about. You take all these atoms and what not... they come together and then they have movement and sentience... BUT HOW?
As far as evolution and everything goes... I was born and raised a Catholic and believed in Evolution. Then I was born again and became a fundamentalist, which isn't easy... let me tell you! I just figure that when I die I would rather go before God and say I believed everything in the bible, then go before him and say I didn't. I mean... if I'm wrong do you think He would be mad at me for believing it? I can use the same argument for God as well. I'd rather die believing... if He doesn't exist I lose nothing... but if he does exist I gain everything.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


*laughs* is this a battle. *leaves to go get shield and sword and helmet*



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Alienmojo
 


Except I don't think God considered the "Just in case" crowed as true believers. I really dislike the just in case argument lmfao.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Like I said, depends on how you view evolution. If your expecting a bird to hatch a giraffe, then I suppose evolution never happens. Yet, if you pay attention to modern theory, it happens all the time.


Well, isnt that what Evolution is ? It all started with one cell in a lava boiling hot mud hole that was struck by lighting ?
or is that modell out the window too ?

I don't read to much about Evolution, cause it changes all the time...
Where did whales come from ? some die hard Evo dudes tell me they were Bears crawilng out to sea, other Die hard Evo dudes say I am the idiot for saying that, so , Im guessing the Evo dudes really dont know what it is they are learning or teaching others.... just seems like it ..

You seem like an smart guy, where did Bears come from, from the stand point of that First cell (surviveing burning lava when the earth was melted rock and some how had water?) that evolved into several types of cells, brain cells, kidnye cells, liver cells Etc...


[edit on 6/11/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Alienmojo
 


yes..since everything is made up of atoms..why do certain combinations of certain elements have "life" its very strange...

never really looked at it like that..but it is quite mysterious



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





Did it happen by accident? No, people wanted computers. They made the code.

I'm right here baby.
Dosn't this pretty much say it all.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by randyvs]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join