How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I remember that thread. Pretty sure it was explained to you a thousand different ways.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I asked that question on ATS long ago, 2 asexual creatures suddenly start evolving sexual organs in two different directions, male and female, does evolution care to explain how long it took for these to develop ?

For both the male and female organs to "evolve" synchronously is another miracle, or extremely low-probability event. Considering the morphological necessities, neural connections, gamete production, meiosis, and fluid secretions that would be necessary for a male-female sexual species is an insurmountable leap from asexuality. Evolutionists insist they are based in objectivity, but there is faith required at every turn to believe this theory. The faith that 'evolution did it'.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I asked that question on ATS long ago, 2 asexual creatures suddenly start evolving sexual organs in two different directions, male and female, does evolution care to explain how long it took for these to develop ?

For both the male and female organs to "evolve" synchronously is another miracle, or extremely low-probability event. Considering the morphological necessities, neural connections, gamete production, meiosis, and fluid secretions that would be necessary for a male-female sexual species is an insurmountable leap from asexuality. Evolutionists insist they are based in objectivity, but there is faith required at every turn to believe this theory. The faith that 'evolution did it'.

You guys love your straw mans. None of that stuff existed when sexes first developed. It simply started as asexual organisms gaining the ability to ALSO share genes with others. Remember, this was long before any real type of animal evolved, in fact the kingdom animal was just started. The sexes evolved slowly around that ability because genetic diversity was more conducive to long term survival and increased in complexity over hundreds of millions of years. You always try to claim the original formation of something is exactly as complex as today, but that's fallacious.

“A cell has a nucleus and some other parts like membranes, plasmas and other stuff. Its energy is made up of protons, neurons and electrons. Genetic scientists, however, have discovered that the majority of a cell is made up of something unknown. Something akin to space filled with electromagnetic fibers of light. The human body is made up of some 37 trillion cells. What do you think you are made of? Who do you think you are?”
― Kate McGahan, Jack McAfghan: Return from Rainbow Bridge: An Afterlife Story of Loss, Love and Renewal



“The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”
― John Burdon Sanderson Haldane


“No matter who you are, who your parents are, you have innate genome flaws, and we do not yet know enough about the vast majority of these potential flaws, and their true risks, to make really intelligent choices.”
― Juan Enriquez, Steve Gullans, Evolving Ourselves: How Unnatural Selection and Nonrandom Mutation are Changing Life on Earth



“It wasn’t that we started to look at things because there was now a mechanism by which to see them. There first had to be a will to see, buried somewhere inside living things. Without it, the mechanism would never have taken shape.”
― Koji Suzuki

a reply to: Barcs

You guys love your straw mans.

I don't dispute the why part at all, the explanation given is scientifically sound.

But come on, the "how long did it take" question for female and male sex organs to fully develop from nothing and be used is a legitimate question that relates to reproduction within the evolutionary theory, it is not a straw man. It's not a straw man to also say that didn't happen just once but twice with 2, one for each sex. It's not a straw man to say for this to work they both had to be ready at the same time after perhaps millions of years of mutations and adaptations of both micro & macro evolution. It's not straw man to say question the fossil record on this too, but since these are all soft tissue organs, there will never be missing link type fossils.....I guess you too have faith that these creatures existed in the past based on your world view.
I wish you guys would have .001% of an iota of humility to say, we don't really know yet, instead you yell "straw man" as a defense.
It's so intellectually dishonest, with a tinge of cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

But that doesn't discredit evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

But that doesn't discredit evolution.

.....perhaps in your mind, from my vantage point it's just another huge hole in the total concept being presented as a fact of reality on par with the abiogenesis issue within the totality of the ideology, another very damaged piece of the puzzle that just doesn't fit as we are being told.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sorry, but it is a straw man to say that all those things required in modern day reproduction listed by Coop were required at the time the ability to share genes originally arose.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

I wish you guys would have .001% of an iota of humility to say, we don't really know yet, instead you yell "straw man" as a defense.
It's so intellectually dishonest, with a tinge of cognitive dissonance.

At least yelling "straw man" makes the game being played more obvious. The Great "We Don't Know (Yet)"-God of the agnostic gaps is such a convenient cop-out to plug the hole (more like a chasm) in the evolutionary storyline in this case.

So I think I prefer the squirming your way out of providing an answer to the 'how'-question with silly fallacy accusations over squirming your way out of providing an answer with the appeal to the Great 'We Don't Know (Yet)' as if the answer is still forthcoming (like with abiogenesis).

Talking about the promises of progress in the field of abiogenesis, a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life":

...
What do many scientists claim? Many who believe in evolution would tell you that billions of years ago, life began on the edge of an ancient tidal pool or deep in the ocean. They feel that in some such location, chemicals spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures, formed complex molecules, and began replicating. They believe that all life on earth originated by accident from one or more of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

What does the evidence reveal? ...
...

1. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

Source: The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin?)

Zip, zilch, nada, bupkis. Just like a testable proposal for how asexually reproducing organisms developed the means to reproduce sexually over millions of years and many generations to somehow magically make the switch at the same time (as if they knew) for at least 2 organisms of opposite sexes in approx. close location to one another for sexual reproduction to have a chance (they have to meet first). Or this step required in the evolutionary storyline:

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *
...
*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
...
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

"No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible." Let alone that it actually happened that way. Not even a proof of concept so to speak, when talking in engineering terms, which could be appropiate in this case if one is keeping this proof of concept in mind for comparison for example (and because we're still talking about the development of new molecular machinery and new ways of structuring the interactions and interdependent co-functionality of these systems of machinery):

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

But that doesn't discredit evolution.

.....perhaps in your mind, from my vantage point it's just another huge hole in the total concept being presented as a fact of reality on par with the abiogenesis issue within the totality of the ideology, another very damaged piece of the puzzle that just doesn't fit as we are being told.

You say huge hole like there isn't a massive puzzle already assembled to an overwhelming degree. Being incomplete is not a logical argument against the credibility of the big picture. Most would prefer a puzzle missing a few pieces over a few scattered pieces that can't form a coherent solution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

But that doesn't discredit evolution.

.....perhaps in your mind, from my vantage point it's just another huge hole in the total concept being presented as a fact of reality on par with the abiogenesis issue within the totality of the ideology, another very damaged piece of the puzzle that just doesn't fit as we are being told.

You say huge hole like there isn't a massive puzzle already assembled to an overwhelming degree. Being incomplete is not a logical argument against the credibility of the big picture. Most would prefer a puzzle missing a few pieces over a few scattered pieces that can't form a coherent solution.

So then you are showing faith in scientific theories, hypothesis and conjecture, the same as me showing faith in God and his Bible..... a persons world view shapes where they decide to ultimately place their faith.
Either way it has to do with allowing our mentality to assuage our conscience, as a function to negate our built in need for the spiritual.
Another hole in the total concept-the human conscience, it can't evolve, it just is, within the synaptic function, it's not biological.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Interesting theories that answer the why but not the actually how, there is zero fossil evidence as well, and without fossils how do you form a cohesive ideology.....more faith in theoretical science that is basically fugazi.

But that doesn't discredit evolution.

.....perhaps in your mind, from my vantage point it's just another huge hole in the total concept being presented as a fact of reality on par with the abiogenesis issue within the totality of the ideology, another very damaged piece of the puzzle that just doesn't fit as we are being told.

You say huge hole like there isn't a massive puzzle already assembled to an overwhelming degree. Being incomplete is not a logical argument against the credibility of the big picture. Most would prefer a puzzle missing a few pieces over a few scattered pieces that can't form a coherent solution.

So then you are showing faith in scientific theories, hypothesis and conjecture, the same as me showing faith in God and his Bible..... a persons world view shapes where they decide to ultimately place their faith.
Either way it has to do with allowing our mentality to assuage our conscience, as a function to negate our built in need for the spiritual.
Another hole in the total concept-the human conscience, it can't evolve, it just is, within the synaptic function, it's not biological.

No. Your puzzle is a few scattered pieces of historical record surrounded by conjecture, hypothesis and magical ambiguity where imagination and metaphysics fill in the blanks. Some folks prefer dna samples and fossil and geology records and a direct line of natural causality that can be reconstructed according to the laws of physics. Not extrapolation that relies heavily on factors neither tested nor proven.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So then you are showing faith in scientific theories, hypothesis and conjecture, the same as me showing faith in God and his Bible.....

Huh? There is no faith required for science. Not knowing everything there is to know about a theory doesn't make it wrong or equivalent of religious faith in something that can't even be demonstrated in the first place. The theory of evolution is far beyond that.

It's the same fallacies every time. Evolution is backed by so much evidence, that denial is akin to insanity. Not knowing the exact entire history of every little transition on earth is not an argument against it, especially when you don't even have a viable alternative explanation.

Either way it has to do with allowing our mentality to assuage our conscience, as a function to negate our built in need for the spiritual. Another hole in the total concept-the human conscience, it can't evolve, it just is, within the synaptic function, it's not biological.

Sorry but you can't use hypothetical concepts to argue with science, you need evidence or proof that the supporting evidence is wrong. You can't prove that a "conscience" even exists. No wonder your other thread went nowhere. Your logic is extremely flawed.

Creative Evolution anyone?

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
― G.K. Chesterton


“My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative evolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacrifice.
[From the will of GBS]” ― George Bernard Shaw


“Folks, it's time to evolve. That's why we're troubled. You know why our institutions are failing us, the church, the state, everything's failing? It's because, um – they're no longer relevant. We're supposed to keep evolving. Evolution did not end with us growing opposable thumbs. You do know that, right?”
― Bill Hicks

a reply to: AlienView

There is no explicit evidence for any intelligent influence or supernatural meddling in evolution. So no.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

There is no explicit evidence for any intelligent influence or supernatural meddling in evolution. So no.

And that is the whole damn problem - That what you just said 'might' be true ?

But even the most famous and often very cynical philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that at some point
faith is a necessity even in science.

And some of us have to believe Human intelligence has to be more than dumb chance, luck and evolution of species.

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

There is no explicit evidence for any intelligent influence or supernatural meddling in evolution. So no.

And that is the whole damn problem - That what you just said 'might' be true ?

But even the most famous and often very cynical philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said that at some point
faith is a necessity even in science.

And some of us have to believe Human intelligence has to be more than dumb chance, luck and evolution of species.

Why? Because of your fragile ego and sense of relevance? Ultimately, a "reason for existing" just gets in the way of having fun and making the most of what you have. Higher purpose is a placebo and a crutch for that crippling uncertainty of what happens next.

These bible texts penned in the first century by the Apostle Paul without doubt inspired by God because he could look into the future to see Evolution would be a thing, and these verses address them better than any other in the bible.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For [God does not overlook sin and] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their wickedness suppress and stifle the truth,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them [in their inner consciousness], for God made it evident to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.
21 For even though they knew God [as the Creator], they did not honor Him as God or give thanks [for His wondrous creation]. On the contrary, they became worthless in their thinking [godless, with pointless reasonings, and silly speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.

He called it pretty accurately centuries before Darwin spouted his conjectural hypothetical theory.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Why [ do you think human intelligence has to be more than dumb luck]? Because of your fragile ego and sense of relevance?

No because we are bi-pedal, rational, encephalized, self-repairing, self-replicating organic supercomputers. This does not happen by accident.

Ultimately, a "reason for existing" just gets in the way of having fun and making the most of what you have.

Then why do you peruse internet forums arguing about the origins of existence? If there is no point to reasoning your existence, you should not even voice your opinion, especially since it inspires hopelessness and nihilism. You are endorsing a dead end nihilist philosophy.