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.

 

How did sexual reproduction come to be (from an evolutionary standpoint)?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 





THE HEAVENS declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork.

Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night shows forth knowledge.

There is no speech nor spoken word [from the stars]; their voice is not heard.

Yet their voice [in evidence] goes out through all the earth, their sayings to the end of the world. Of the heavens has God made a tent for the sun.Psalm 19:1-4

But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. 1 Corinthians 2:14



And more blabla preaching nonsense


How about you post some objective evidence for a change instead of posting laughable bible quotes?




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



AT THE END OF THEIR LIFE EVERYONE WILL KNOW...(ETERNAL LIFE) OR (ETERNAL DEATH)



And the sea delivered up the dead who were in it, death and Hades ( the state of death or disembodied existence) surrendered the dead in them, and all were tried and their cases determined by what they had done [according to their motives, aims, and works].

Then death and Hades ( the state of death or disembodied existence) were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

And if anyone's [name] was not found recorded in the Book of Life, he was hurled into the lake of fire.
REVELATION 20:13-15



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


...and you continue to preach without ever bothering to back up you claims with objective evidence



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Believe It Or Not!

Genesis 1
1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.

Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and dominion, for You created all things; by Your will they were [brought into being] and were created. Revelation 4:11
To understand this Biblical term, it is necessary to understand that there are TWO BIRTHS. The "first" birth is the PHYSICAL BIRTH when you were born into this world from your mother and father. When the Bible speaks of being "born of water," it is speaking about the physical birth (NOT baptism). The "second" birth is a SPIRITUAL BIRTH, which means to be born of the "Spirit" (God's Holy Spirit). Why does a person need to be born spiritually? What is a "spiritual" birth?

The Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God. God manifests Himself to mankind in the Persons of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Likewise, mankind is composed of a body, soul, and spirit. Our body is the "tent" you could say of the soul and spirit (the body is a temporary dwelling place). Our soul is composed of the heart (to feel), the mind (to think), and the will (to decide).

Our spirit is dead in sin when we are born; that is, we are born void of God. No person is ever born with God. The only exception is the Lord Jesus Christ Who came as God in the flesh (1st Timothy 3:16). Our spirit is dead in trespasses and sin the Bible says...

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1,2).

The unsaved person cannot understand God, nor His Word...

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1st Corinthians 2:14).



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Faith2011
 


And more preaching


Of course



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
It is not known, it is a theory. And that's because it never actually happened.

Amazing that two biological organisms evolved in perfect sync, rewriting their own DNA/RNA for sexual reproductive reasons, producing the sexual organs, not only that, but in all species at the same time. When Asexual production is better for the survival of the species you are actually going backwards on the evolutionary scale.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yup. But the proponents of ToE will still resort to the old "we dont know, but evolutiondidit".
Observation? Testability? Naaaah.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 




As mentioned before, but obviously ignored, you're confusing "don't have a definite answer" and "have absolutely no evidence". The current hypotheses for the evolution of sexual reproduction are based on evidence, not pure conjecture. More evidence needs to be acquired to determine which of those hypothetical models, or combination of hypothetical models, is the most likely.

I wasn't confusing anything, simply because the original post was about whether or not we apply "don't have a definite answer" to the idea of evolution as a whole, since ToE proponents answer questions attempting to test the validity of ToE (much like the question posed in the OP) with "don't have a definite answer", yet maintain that ToE in itself is correct.




Also keep in mind that evolution may rely, to some degree, on sexual reproduction but it doesn't matter how sexual reproduction came to exist, just that it does exist.

It didn't always exist, it supposedly evolved into existence.
You say "it doesn't matter how sexual reproduction came to exist", but go on later to say that ToE "doesn't care how life got here, it's only concerned with what it does once it exists.
Since sexual reproduction is something that life "did" after life itself came into existence, then ToE is very much concerned with the origins of sexual reproduction.




Your argument is similar to those who try and conflate abiogenesis and evolution by arguing that, because we don't know for a fact how life came to be, the theory of evolution cannot be correct. The theory of evolution doesn't care how life got here, it's only concerned with what it does once it exists.


I'll repeat. Since sexual reproduction is something that life "did" after life itself came into existence, then ToE is very much concerned with the origins of sexual reproduction.




edit on 4-4-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: tag edits



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The questions on the origin and maintenance of sexual reproduction has been accommodated to a host of answers provided in this thread, via links, logic, research, vast amounts of the assessment of such research, amongst many other things. Yet the concept remains at arms length to those who just assumed no such answer could ever be provided.

As for the evolution of two genders, imagine an isogamous population, gametes of size m, who are evolutionary stable when the optimal size of a zygote is 2m. Obviously, one can make more gametes the smaller the size, though if its too small its probability of not surviving becomes a factor. Bigger gametes can increase the probability of survival, but at some point an increase in size does not sufficiently optimize reproductive fitness when smaller number of offspring can't counter the increase in size. So a population has to ask itself, "at what size can a mutant gamete, of size x, invade the population of m."

Given the right mutations, there will be a size of gamete x, that can coexist with gamete m, maximizing the reproductive fitness of each individual. Thus creating an anisogamous population. Different survival functions from there are inevitable because there are different selection pressures acting on each gamete size. If the mutation never occurs, or the fitness is greater for a gamete of one size in a population, the population will remain isogamous.

This is an oversimplification, but a necessary one that is tenable with the basic concept of how the evolution of sexual reproduction can be proven, and has been proven mathematically, as well as logically and physically.

Sexual reproduction evolved because those organisms that reproduce sexually descended from organisms that reproduced sexually who descended from organisms who reproduced sexually who descended from organisms that reproduced sexually who descended from..............................................who descended from organisms that reproduced sexually................................who descended from organisms that had the sexual reproduction mutation. All it takes is one, though it more than likely occurred many times.

Now, what part of this is hard to understand? Is it the mutation part? Mutations happen so its perfectly reasonable to assume billions of years ago mutations happened, probably at a higher rate (or perhaps at a lower rate) as organisms were "experimenting" (as they still are and always will be) with the tradeoffs between repair mechanisms and metabolism.
edit on 4-4-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yup. But the proponents of ToE will still resort to the old "we dont know, but evolutiondidit".
Observation? Testability? Naaaah.

So unless evolutionary bioligists can explain every aspect of every life form in existence, including their entire history spanning hundreds of millions (billions?) of years, then that somehow invalidates the overwhelming amount of evidence we have in other branches of the tree/bush of life for evolution taking place? You have an agenda, and as the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
How about you post some objective evidence for a change instead of posting laughable bible quotes?


Kettle is that you? That is sort of laughable given that all you can offer up is speculation on the subject. You only believe in evidence unless it supports your theories...?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
So unless evolutionary bioligists can explain every aspect of every life form in existence, including their entire history spanning hundreds of millions (billions?) of years, then that somehow invalidates the overwhelming amount of evidence we have in other branches of the tree/bush of life for evolution taking place? You have an agenda, and as the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into


Are you arguing that everyone should accept the speculation and not question it? That does not seem scientific (at least in theory - its actually the basis of modern-day science - and the basis of the Spanish inquisition).



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I wasn't confusing anything, simply because the original post was about whether or not we apply "don't have a definite answer" to the idea of evolution as a whole, since ToE proponents answer questions attempting to test the validity of ToE (much like the question posed in the OP) with "don't have a definite answer", yet maintain that ToE in itself is correct.

Which questions have been posited that attempt to test the validity of the theory of evolution in this thread?

Here’s the OP:

The theory of evolution in itself, to a very large extent, rests on living beings ability to sexually reproduce. But not much is said of how this mechanism arose in the first place.

I've always wondered how evolution explains how sexual reproduction came to be. I'd like to know how exactly complimenting male and female cells developed and then went on to be able to produce offspring... after a gestation period.

So far, my internet searches have only yielded various speculations on this subject. As we all know we cannot take speculation of what went on millions of years ago, as confirmed fact.

You don’t seem to be asking questions to test the validity of the theory of evolution in your OP. You’re asking how one of the many mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution came to be. Are you asserting that if we can’t explain the evolution of sexual reproduction that the theory of evolution is somehow falsified? That’s really not how falsification of a scientific theory works. If you want to read about way to potentially falsify evolution, read up on Cambrian bunny fossils.

There are a whole host of chemical reactions for which the mechanisms haven’t yet been elucidated. That doesn’t mean the reactions don’t happen or that we don’t have evidence evidence that suggests what the mechanisms may be, it just means that we don’t know the mechanisms yet. And scientists will race to try and determine those mechanisms, if for no other reason than its one way to get your name tacked onto a reaction.


It didn't always exist, it supposedly evolved into existence.
You say "it doesn't matter how sexual reproduction came to exist", but go on later to say that ToE "doesn't care how life got here, it's only concerned with what it does once it exists.
Since sexual reproduction is something that life "did" after life itself came into existence, then ToE is very much concerned with the origins of sexual reproduction.

I don’t remember suggesting that it always existed, but that’s neither here nor there. I think I gave the wrong impression when I said that the theory of evolution isn’t concerned with the origin of sexual reproduction – it’s is absolutely a hot area of research in evolutionary biology. (An aside: If you want to read about some other areas of evolutionary biology that are still being explored, check out the testimony by Dr. Kenneth Miller on day 1 of the Kitzmiller trial.) But the theory of evolution doesn’t suddenly fall to pieces if we don’t know the origin of sexual reproduction. The theory of evolution still makes predictions that are verifiable and it still hasn’t been falsified by any of the evidence presented to date. Whatever mechanism resulted in the evolution of sexual reproduction will be incorporated into the theory of evolution once it has been determined. There is evidence, already presented to you in this thread, that it evolved. If someone would like to present an alternate means by which sexual reproduction originated that does not involve evolution, they need to provide positive evidence of their hypothesis and not simply claim that theirs must be just as valid because evolutionary biologists are 100% super mega ultra positive about the mechanism, as you seem to need them to be to sleep well at night.


I'll repeat. Since sexual reproduction is something that life "did" after life itself came into existence, then ToE is very much concerned with the origins of sexual reproduction.

And I’ll repeat… nah, I won’t bother. Go read my last two paragraphs again.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
Kettle is that you? That is sort of laughable given that all you can offer up is speculation on the subject. You only believe in evidence unless it supports your theories...?

When you say "speculation" in that context, are you asserting that there's no evidence behind evolutionary origins for sexual reproduction?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It is not known, it is a theory. And that's because it never actually happened.

Amazing that two biological organisms evolved in perfect sync, rewriting their own DNA/RNA for sexual reproductive reasons, producing the sexual organs, not only that, but in all species at the same time. When Asexual production is better for the survival of the species you are actually going backwards on the evolutionary scale.

Your strawman arguments stemming from a misguided concept of irreducible complexity are still bad arguments that have been abandoned by most creationsists. They're not going to suddenly get more right because you've found a new thread to post them in.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serafine
An Axiom is a statement accepted as true without proof. A theorem is a statement proved to be true.

Some people seriously get the two confused....

i.e. 1 is an infinite number, how many "think" 1 = finite?
edit on 2011/3/29 by Serafine because: addition


I just wanted to add something to the definition of a `Theorem`, it is deemed to be logically true.

If you wish to discuss the validity of logic, reason and rationality, experiment in the domains of science, I would suggest reading Paul Feyerabend-`Against Method` and Thomas Kuhn-`The Structure of Scientific Revolutions`, obviously these works are but the tip of a very large iceberg, there exists a wealth of Philosophical works to look at and a substantial amount of `Scientific History` books to trawl through, citing examples of the methods of discovery.(which can be quite a messy affair)

I too have difficulty in believing that the reach/importance of evolution is as great as supporters say, but It fulfills the requirements of the scientific methods that produced it. The methods may be lacking in many areas, some virtually impossible to realize in practice, ( remember this is the work of humans, in all their variety) but at present it is the most coherent picture of nature we possess.

In the future science may regard it as just a small piece, of a more encompassing theory...but if/when this happens it will be scientific research that discovers it, most certainly in ways that are not apparent at this present moment in time.

take care.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by john_bmth
So unless evolutionary bioligists can explain every aspect of every life form in existence, including their entire history spanning hundreds of millions (billions?) of years, then that somehow invalidates the overwhelming amount of evidence we have in other branches of the tree/bush of life for evolution taking place? You have an agenda, and as the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into


Are you arguing that everyone should accept the speculation and not question it? That does not seem scientific (at least in theory - its actually the basis of modern-day science - and the basis of the Spanish inquisition).

No, I'm arguing that people shouldn't wilfully dismiss large bodies of evidence and construct strawmen arguments to justify their irrational belief in invisible sky pixies.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Some say that a long time ago, there were two separate species that formed a symbiotic relationship, and eventually integrated into the same being. Forming the basis for all the other creatues of gender.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by MrXYZ
How about you post some objective evidence for a change instead of posting laughable bible quotes?


Kettle is that you? That is sort of laughable given that all you can offer up is speculation on the subject. You only believe in evidence unless it supports your theories...?


No, I'm saying science has several HYPOTHESES...as in, they simply don't know for sure how it happened. That's been posted on page one of this thread...

You and a ton of others on the other hand, use the bible as "evidence" to support your explanation...MAGIC, aka god. You are filling a gap in knowledge with magic...typical god of the gaps flawed argumentation. What's so hard in admitting that we just don't have a definite answer yet??


The bible is only proof of one thing...namely what people believed to be true 2000 years ago, given their limited knowledge compared to what science knows today



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 





An Axiom is a statement accepted as true without proof. A theorem is a statement proved to be true. Some people seriously get the two confused.... i.e. 1 is an infinite number, how many "think" 1 = finite?


I don't think infinite can be described or explained or grasped by numbers, it is technically impossible to put a number on infinity, and numbers are used to mostly describe and grasp the finite better.
edit on 6-4-2011 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)







 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join