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.
...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
Some bacteria can only reproduce sexually, with a male and female bacteria.
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
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
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..
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.
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?
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..
that would be a much easier way than sexually to reproduce to keep a species alive...
sexual reproduction among cells is different than among larger forms of life
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.
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]
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.
Did it happen by accident? No, people wanted computers. They made the code.