Primordial ooze and mating

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Volcanism, celestial impact, lightning, it doesn't take away from the primordial ooze/soup aspect. Oh, and this isn't meant to be a debate, it's meant to be a discussion.




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by solomons path
 


How was I not seeking explination when I was asking multiple questions?
And while you may not be throwing direct personal attacks, you're showing a very arrogant attitude on an internet forum. Why is that? Do you think you're superior to others?


I'm sorry. I write in a very direct style, so my point is as clear as can be. I'm not sure how you can determine arrogance or my opinions of self based on that. From now on I'll say "buddy" as a to and from?


Back on topic . . . You asked questions. I provided the overview of current beliefs on this issue, even a link to more detailed information. I also offered to post more links, if you would like.

You said you are refusing to read anything further on the subject and continue to respond to any explanation with "they're just theories".

So what is your point of asking questions, buddy, if you are not interested in actually learning about the subject? What have you added to the debate or offered yourself, as to the evolution of sexual reproduction, to further the discussion/debate?

edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by solomons path
 


Volcanism, celestial impact, lightning, it doesn't take away from the primordial ooze/soup aspect. Oh, and this isn't meant to be a debate, it's meant to be a discussion.


Fine, I'll say discussion, since debate seems too harsh. So, in this discussion you are still missing the point that the heat facilitated the formations of these protein strands and started the reaction, nothing more. The heat is merely a catalyst. It's not as simple as "lightning and life appeared". As Barcs mentioned . . . it took millions of years for life to form and a billion more before multicellular. Millions more still for sexual reproduction to arise.

If you would read up on the subject, these answers would present themselves and we could talk about any objections . . . but, again, you don't seem interested in really finding the answers to your questions, only saying the explanations are "just theories".

So, what is your point, friend?
edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


No I actually said I saw the words "competing scientific hypotheses" and didn't bother reading because again, they're hypotheses. And I never said I wouldn't read anything about the topic, I just said I won't read theories. I'd love to see what other input people have on the topic, different ideas are always interesting.
I've already stated my point is to have a discussion, not "educate myself" with things that aren't facts as of yet.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Reply to post by solomons path
 


whatever you want to believe, be my guest. :-) However, it has also been said in this thread that the OP is trying to disprove evolution... We are in the area of abiogenesis here. So lets not derail the thread with your ignorance. Back to the topic... excellent question OP, thanks again for bringing this up :up


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMistro81
Reply to post by solomons path
 


whatever you want to believe, be my guest. :-) However, it has also been said in this thread that the OP is trying to disprove evolution... We are in the area of abiogenesis here. So lets not derail the thread with your ignorance. Back to the topic... excellent question OP, thanks again for bringing this up :up


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



How is that a personal attack? The OP asked about the evolution of sexual reproduction. That is not a part of abiogenesis. I provided the answers to his question and a link, which he choose to ignore.

So, now the thread is about Abiogenesis and not Sexual Reproduction? So why the questions about sexual reproduction and how it came about?

Neither of you clearly know what either states and where one ends and the other takes over, if you think his OP was about Abiogenesis.




If humans, or all life for that matter, was to come from one life form, how did mating come to be?





And if we came from a single cell, why would that cell change its habits from self replicating, to mating over the course of evolution? Surely self replicating is more efficient, mating would seem to be a step backwards. Why don't animals just self replicate?


Those questions deal with Evolutionary Theory . . . The OP is assuming Abiogenesis in the qualifications of his questions.

Maybe if either of you educated yourselves on both issues, you would understand that "fact". I think this is where the disconnect is occuring.

Seriously . . . no arrogance here. You both just need to read up on both before entering into a discussion. The OP has already made it clear that he will not.

reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 



No I actually said I saw the words "competing scientific hypotheses" and didn't bother reading because again, they're hypotheses. And I never said I wouldn't read anything about the topic, I just said I won't read theories. I'd love to see what other input people have on the topic, different ideas are always interesting.


So, not interested in "educating" in things that aren't facts. Which to you are "theories". So, you still don't understand what those terms actually mean and are continuing to confuse Hypothesis and Theory (tested explanation of facts, which are events that do happen in reality) with opinion. But, you want other views which, if not hypothesis or theory have even less facts, as both have been tested and stand up to testing. So, you want opinions, as they are more trustworthy? Since, no explanation contains any "facts"?

So what is the purpose of asking the questions or starting a discussion? Nothing, according to your definitions, will contain any "facts" . . . therefore, you have already stated you don't want to read about them or educate yourself . . . as you are only interested in "facts"? And, outside of the questions in the OP . . . you have offered no other info to further the discussion. How is it a discussion, if you don't share your views? What is your point of asking questions, if not for education?

Good luck with a thread that "seeks answers", but is unwilling to educate yourself on the answers that are already widely available . . . hope you find the confirmation you are looking for.
edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 





Ignorance simply means that he is uneducated


It also sounds very rude when you use the term in conversations such as this.

The simple life forms have proved time and again to be stronger and more durable so I don't see any reason for it to have changed so drastically and become a weaker form.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Yes . . . when you quote out of context it does seem quite rude. Here is the whole sentence:

Ignorance simply means that he is uneducated in the subject.


I didn't say the OP was uneducated. I said "in the subject", which he clearly is. Nothing wrong with that and it's the reason why they have questions.

I myself am uneducated on a number of things. And, if/when I have questions about them, I'll deny that ignorance by reading as much as possible on the subject and experience things first hand if I can.

So it seems odd to me when someone asks a question and then refuses to accept information based on a misinformed opinion of what "facts" are.

Nobody has to agree and if they can find fault in the information set forth, by all means discuss. However, the OP has yet to express their views as to their opinion on the subject and since they are willing to dismiss relevant information as not being "factual", they obviously have a preconceived opinion of what the "facts" are.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 


If humans, or all life for that matter, was to come from one life form, how did mating come to be? If the first creature to crawl out was male, there were no females to reproduce with, and vice-versa. And I doubt the ooze produced both a male and female simultaneously, knowing it would need to mate.

Damn good question. You've received some general answers; here's a specific one, and scientifically well-founded too. Many evolutionary biologists believe it is the correct explanation for one of the greatest biological mysteries of all, the evolution of sex.

Here's the answer. The shorter an organism's life, the faster members of that species can evolve, because many generations can live and die in a few years. Very small animals, like insects and bacteria, can evolve very rapidly indeed; that's how they build up resistance to antibiotics, pesticides, etc., so quickly.

Many small animals are parasites on bigger animals. Big animals evolve defences against parasites. Parasites find ways round those defences, so the big beasts need to evolve new ones. It's an arms race.

But big animals live longer, so they can't evolve as fast, everything else being equal, as small ones. They need some compensating strategy—some way of shuffling genes and spreading beneficial mutations through the population quickly in order to defend themselves against small, fast-evolving parasites.

Sex is that strategy. Sex is designed to shuffle genes randomly, creating new gene combinations. Some of these will produce bodies more resistant to parasite infestation than others, and these will survive to reproduce to the next generation... and so on.





top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join