Gender Evolution - Another Challenge To The Theory

a reply to: borntowatch

Suggest a viable alternative then, which explains hundreds of years of observation, across multiple disciplines... or bring some proof that "god did it".

Until then evolution is the best answer we've got, whether you like it or not.

Willfully not understanding it is just ignorance.

No faith, just the best explanation to date... you're welcome to suggest an alternative (with evidence).

a reply to: borntowatch

Hey look who's joined in.

The Theory of Evolution does not have "so many holes in it, that it can only be taken on as faith", those would be weasel words on your part my Australian neighbor. We've done this dance a number of times, and I am afraid you willfully choose to ignore evidence as it contradicts your ideology. That is a very intellectually dishonest position to take.

You are correct on one thing however. A theory with more holes than a good Swiss Cheese. That would be the OP's ideas.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

Hey look who's joined in.

The Theory of Evolution does not have "so many holes in it, that it can only be taken on as faith", those would be weasel words on your part my Australian neighbor. We've done this dance a number of times, and I am afraid you willfully choose to ignore evidence as it contradicts your ideology. That is a very intellectually dishonest position to take.

You are correct on one thing however. A theory with more holes than a good Swiss Cheese. That would be the OP's ideas.

I havnt seen any evidence, if calling me names seems like your best chance at winning then you have accepted defeat

Typical Kiwi, so close then...How did the world cup cricket go for yah, neighbor

The best way to prove me wrong is EVIDENCE

That would finally give you something to put on your mantlepiece
Short Of that evolution is like just a Rotorua, stinky place with hot air


Weasel....really? Trying to bully me, grow up

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: borntowatch

Suggest a viable alternative then, which explains hundreds of years of observation, across multiple disciplines... or bring some proof that "god did it".

Until then evolution is the best answer we've got, whether you like it or not.

Willfully not understanding it is just ignorance.

No faith, just the best explanation to date... you're welcome to suggest an alternative (with evidence).

No I dont have to suggest anything, I am not trying to sell you anything.
You are the one peddling your beliefs, they are beliefs if they lack evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence to answer the opening question, maybe you should call me a weasel as well?

I agree evolution is the best scientific answer, though anyone with half a brain can see its so stupid its luddite stuff.

get back to me with an answer, not assumption

I have a question of those who don't "believe" in evolution. If human beings (and many, if not all, other life forms) did not evolve, then why do our bodies depend on other life forms to survive? Meaning, if we did not have certain bacteria in our digestive systems, we would die.

How did it come to be that some species are so dependent upon co-existing with others?

If a creator just plopped us here in our current form, why the need for this?

Evolution is the only thing that makes sense to me, that some life evolved together with others and their co-dependence made it essential to survival.

Anyone have a better answer?

originally posted by: borntowatch
You are the one peddling your beliefs, they are beliefs if they lack evidence.

I think the proper term is discussing probabilities. Somewhere along the way evidence begins to point in a general direction.

Notice the word "general".

get back to me with an answer, not assumption

Why don't you sit back and wait for the phone to ring?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

In both genders their two different systems are very complex, was it mutations in theory that caused it?

Don't know if you missed my earlier post. Sex first evolved in a microorganism, so the mechanics were simple (although the chemistry was not). Over time, as speciation occurred, different populations evolved different modes of coitus, and the corresponding equipment.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
It gets back to DNA/RNA these just don't rewrite themselves into ovaries and testicles simultaneously in perfect biological symmetry. To what end if they can't be used immediately, it is an inefficient use of tissue within the organism that is going unused. It actually is going against the theory of evolution, in that the changes don't benefit the organism sooner, but rather much later.

Well since this thread is dedicated to my quote on sexuality, I figured I'd just highlight this post here because it demonstrates your clear misunderstanding with the topic. It wasn't originally through ovaries and testicles.

Astyanax already mentioned this, but don't forget that sexual reproduction evolved around 1.2 billion years ago. This was when organisms were still single celled and very simple. You didn't have reproductive organs, you had the ability to inject your genes into another, and replicate using that combination of DNA, rather than just copying your own DNA.

Sexual reproduction predates multi-cellular organisms and started very simple. It evolved over time. They didn't just magically turn into sex organs. The methods of DNA combining just improved slowly over time because the organisms that had the most sex were more favored to survive in the long term and were more adaptable to environmental changes because of the genetic diversity that it promoted.

a reply to: borntowatch

You have seen screeds of evidence neighbor, you just refuse to acknowledge any, as it challenges your philisophical stance.

You have never heard the phrase weasel words? I kinda doubt that, and you decided to throw a tantrum, and be all nationalistic over silly game of cricket? Well for future reference:

Weasle Words is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.

I did not call you a mustelid, you are not that evolved

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

According to an article I read a while ago, sexual reproduction evolved to prevent death by parasites:

Sexual reproduction that involves two partners is far less efficient than self-fertilization -- at least, from the perspective of evolution. So why did creatures like humans ever start having sex with each other? According to a new study, we did it to fight parasites. We spoke with the researchers to discover what this says about sex.

Biologists at the University of Indiana found some of the most convincing evidence yet that the evolutionary driver of sexual reproduction is a need to avoid death by parasites. The basic logic is that, if an organism reproduces asexually, then the genetic variation of its species as a whole will slowly grind to a halt, and it becomes increasingly likely that a parasite that can kill one member of the species can wreak havoc on the entire population. (For proof of that, just look at bananas.)

Sexual reproduction, then, serves as a way to keep introducing genetic variety, a process that has to constantly be repeated in order to continue staving off attacks the latest and deadliest parasites. This is known as the "Red Queen Hypothesis", taking its name from a line in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

The article: io9.com...

Sexual reproduction may be pleasurable for many species, but it is not a very effective way of reproducing, as it is not immediate like asexual reproduction. However, it rules this world... but there is no definitive answer as to why.

a reply to: borntowatch

Actually, since you are the one saying that science has it wrong, then the onus is on you to suggest to science an alternative... if you don't, then by default you are accepting the status quo... all you are doing at the moment is whinging about some facts and ignoring others.

Evolution only lacks evidence in your mind.

I agree evolution is the best scientific answer, though anyone with half a brain can see its so stupid its luddite stuff.

So you agree with evolution then... thanks for clearing that up... You just disagree with the particulars... right?

Well, disagreeing with the particulars is what science is all about... the scientific community is eagerly awaiting for you to explain to them (with evidence) of how evolution actually works.

You will be among an elite minority:

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism.

Go on... prove the world wrong!... oh that's right... you don't actually want to contribute to the body of knowledge, you just want to complain about hundreds of thousands of people that don't agree with your personal imaginary take on things.

Good work... you're obviously a visionary!

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Once again we return to the fact that these posters are unfamiliar with Scientific method, and it seems the rules of debating. We are not in a shouting match here (despite how it goes down some times ...oops). We are here at the sufferance of the owners of the site, under the watch of the various moderators, and when we deviate too far from the terms and services we all agreed too, posts area deleted and posters removed. Esentially we are obliged to operate under the rules of civil debate to some extent.

Thus niceties such as "you claim it you prove it" fly over their heads, along with "it takes more than a single biased source to prove a point".

a reply to: borntowatch

No I dont have to suggest anything, I am not trying to sell you anything.

You are trying to sell the idea that evolution is wrong... it's just that no-one is buying it.

If not... What are you suggesting then?

You say that science/evolution is wrong and a belief, yet offer no evidence to support your claims, and offer no alternative.
... then the contradiction...
You also agree that evolution is the best that science has... so???

Where does that leave us? Are we to just discard the best line of enquiry we have, and do nothing?

Or fill the gap with "god did it"?

Just what are you suggesting the scientific community do?

I'm actually really curious... because you seem to have left us at a dead end.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
I have a question of those who don't "believe" in evolution. If human beings (and many, if not all, other life forms) did not evolve, then why do our bodies depend on other life forms to survive? Meaning, if we did not have certain bacteria in our digestive systems, we would die.

How did it come to be that some species are so dependent upon co-existing with others?

If a creator just plopped us here in our current form, why the need for this?

Evolution is the only thing that makes sense to me, that some life evolved together with others and their co-dependence made it essential to survival.

Anyone have a better answer?

Thats a question that evolutionists need to address, animals that live symbiotic relationships.

The problem with this approach, it seems to me, is that it contradicts the theory’s idea of evolutionary improvement. Why would Natural Selection evolve a relationship which is so mutually dependent that the extinction of one marks the extinction of the other? More realistically, the logic of symbiotic relationships rather points to the proverbial: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” If one cannot live without the other, which evolved first?
coffeehouseapologetics.wordpress.com...

a reply to: borntowatch

Another straw-man argument from you. You have always admitted a lack of understanding, and belief in Science. Indeed a hostility towards science. Yet you ask us to answer these questions, and your source, a creationist blog. Well you are at least consistent. Just because some kook blogs it, does not mean it is actually a valid argument. Social Media is not known for it's quality control (and yes blogs are social media).

But here yah go Link a big fat heaping pile of scientific papers (and other sources) which talk about this. One day you might even do your own research. Though that would mean you would have to stop with your biased weasel words, and building straw men.

a reply to: borntowatch

As with most of your posts, you show your absolute ignorance and lack of understanding of the topic you are arguing against.

... it seems to me, is that it contradicts the theory’s idea of evolutionary improvement.

Evolution is not about "improvement"... it is about "adaptability", which may lead to improvements, but may also lead to dead ends... like a symbiotic relationship where the extinction of one species also signifies the extinction of another.

Why don't you move past the... "you're wrong"... and instead of dismissing hundreds of thousands of independent thinkers, offer some intellectual alternatives?

Since you like to build strawmen with your lack of understanding... and haven't even answered one of my questions to you... I'll try one last time...

Where does that leave us? Are we to just discard the best line of enquiry we have, and do nothing?

Or fill the gap with "god did it"?

Just what are you suggesting the scientific community do?

a reply to: borntowatch

No.. the problem is your intellectual inability to grasp evolution's fundamental precepts. The only "idea of evolutionary improvement" is in your head. An evolved trait may, or may not, improve the survival of the breeding population. You don't understand that it is populations that evolve, NOT individuals.

a reply to: flyingfish

It always amazes me many many decades past Darwins time, people still think this. Some of this group of the ATS creationist congregation have even gone so far to ask "how did humans evolving lactose tollerance benifit the cows" (when shown evidence of evolution being traceable to that trait, and keeping of cattle).... well yes thats how evolution works, another species evolved trait must help out another species right? RIght? *taps mic* Hello?