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

a reply to: whereislogic

Which of course is not the same as saying paleontology and fossil research has not strongly informed evolutionary theory as it currently stands. Because that would be wrong.

originally posted by: whereislogic
This argument sounded really dumb to me. With all due respect, don't you think that's a bit of a leap (of faith)? Shouldn't we at least try to make up some clever elaborate 'bedtime story' regarding the evolutionary stages in between now and 3.5 billion years ago before making such claims?

Multiple fossils dating back that far (and further)have been found, so you can't call that faith or dumb.

The "fossils" Barcs is referring to seem to be those 'fossils' that are deemed to show the remains of cyanobacteria which lived 3.5 billion years ago. So let's have a more detailed look at just 1 machine in 1 type of cyanobacteria.... CUT

You immediately default to the same fallacious logic as Coop. You assume the bacteria today is the same as it was 3.5 billion years ago, which is a preposterous notion. Where is your evidence for that claim?

Complexity of DNA is not enough to demonstrate design/designer. There is no way at all to test that idea. Plus it invokes infinite regression regarding information that exists in the designer. A designer would have to be more complex than the design and contain information, thus would also need to be designed following that same logic. If you keep going back further in time, eventually you will get to a point where you either have no information or no designer. Can an intelligent designer exist without information? That sounds like a bit of a paradox. Can you give me an idea of how you can rectify this? Just your opinion, not somebody else's stuff or youtube videos.

originally posted by: Barcs

Multiple fossils dating back that far (and further)have been found, so you can't call that faith or dumb.

Show us the empirical evidence to back your claim then. We are constantly citing actual observable science, yet you're getting away with waving the magic wand. Show us the evidence that proves bacteria is 3.5 billion years old.

originally posted by: Barcs
If you keep going back further in time, eventually you will get to a point where you either have no information or no designer.

Philosophers and theologians have concluded that this Being responsible for the creation of all things must have always existed, transcendent of typical limitations of time and space.

It would be naive for a 2-dimensional shadow to say that a 3rd dimension is impossible. Similarly, it is naive for beings bound by time to say that a being unbound by time is impossible.

a reply to: cooperton
Quote coopetton:
"Philosophers and theologians have concluded that this Being responsible for the creation of all things must have always existed, transcendent of typical limitations of time and space.

It would be naive for a 2-dimensional shadow to say that a 3rd dimension is impossible. Similarly, it is naive for beings bound by time to say that a being unbound by time is impossible".



I still can't understand why you - You who believe in Creation - And you who say no way

Can not accept what to me is blatantly the most obvious possibility - The Universe, all that exists, possesses
an inherent pattern [call it science, call it religion, it does not matter] to its very nature.

You can't create anything out of a pure void - Something must have always have been
- But that in no way proves a creator - It simply postulates that science is observing a universe that is
complicated, observable and calculable - Agree?

God, a creator, is faith - Science is observation

And observation can not deny possibilities of existent and unknown states!

The fact that Evolution appears to show creative properties and possibilities may be inherent to Existence itself
- From nothing comes nothing - Existence is very real and is happening now, regardless of why.

originally posted by: AlienView

I still can't understand why you - You who believe in Creation - And you who say no way

Can not accept what to me is blatantly the most obvious possibility - The Universe, all that exists, possesses
an inherent pattern [call it science, call it religion, it does not matter] to its very nature.

From my perspective, this pattern/logarithm strongly hints to a Programmer that instilled the necessary laws of physics to maintain the creation. Computer programs don't write their self.

You can't create anything out of a pure void - Something must have always have been
- But that in no way proves a creator - It simply postulates that science is observing a universe that is
complicated, observable and calculable - Agree?

God, a creator, is faith - Science is observation

In Plato's writings, especially in Timaeus, he is able to logically deduce the necessity of a creator in the creation process:

The fact that Evolution appears to show creative properties and possibilities may be inherent to Existence itself
- From nothing comes nothing - Existence is very real and is happening now, regardless of why.

The creative properties and possibilities are another testament to the vast adaptability programmed in all organisms. We have mistaken these adaptation mechanisms as evolution. Take for example bacteria resistance, once a resistant strain is created through antibiotic pressure, it will return to baseline non-antibiotic-resistance once the antibiotic is removed from the population (Source). This demonstrates that an organism cannot reach beyond its essence, another thing that Plato deduced through philosophical inquiry.

originally posted by: cooperton
Show us the empirical evidence to back your claim then. We are constantly citing actual observable science, yet you're getting away with waving the magic wand. Show us the evidence that proves bacteria is 3.5 billion years old.

www.livescience.com...

www.cbc.ca...

I guess a google search is too hard for you. I know that I and others have posted similar information many times.

Philosophers and theologians have concluded that this Being responsible for the creation of all things must have always existed, transcendent of typical limitations of time and space.

Sorry, nobody cares what philosophers and theologians claim. They can't prove a lick of it. Again, the claim here is that information requires design. If that is your claim then the designer cannot contain or use information, since then it would be required to come from another mind (and that's a paradox), OR there is simply no designer and just the prerequisites that eventually led to information developing. I'm sorry that's the only choice in regards to that claim without infinite regression with information being required to be designed.

It would be naive for a 2-dimensional shadow to say that a 3rd dimension is impossible. Similarly, it is naive for beings bound by time to say that a being unbound by time is impossible.

I never claimed it was impossible. Literally, the only person in this thread claiming things are impossible is YOU, and you have completely failed to back any of it up. This is just more anecdotes.

In Plato's writings, especially in Timaeus, he is able to logically deduce the necessity of a creator in the creation process:

No he's not.

We have mistaken these adaptation mechanisms as evolution.

No, evolution is the label we use to EXPLAIN those adaptations. LMAO! This guy must work directly for Kent Hovind, this argument is old and fallacious. Evolution is the accumulation of these adaptations over time.

a reply to: Barcs

No, evolution is the label we use to EXPLAIN those adaptations. LMAO! This guy must work directly for Kent Hovind, this argument is old and fallacious. Evolution is the accumulation of these adaptations over time.

All his arguments are old, worn out diatribes that have been refuted over and over ad infinitum. When the real evidence is presented, he simply skips over it as though it never happened.

This is the strategy of the idiots at the Creation Institute - what they forget is that we don't forget!

originally posted by: Barcs

www.livescience.com...

www.cbc.ca...

Those are two blog posts. I asked for empirical evidence, Not blind claims. I tried to go to the research articles that they were citing but it requires a Nature subscription. This shows you are just taking their word for it on blind faith, and never really critiqued the methodology. If this is an overwhelmingly evident fact you should be able to find peer-reviewed articles that are full access.

Sorry, nobody cares what philosophers... claim.

You see, this demonstrates your narrow-mindedness, and your lack of balance in various fields of intellectual study. You blindly believe in the science theoreticians, yet you think 'nobody cares what philosophers claim'. Philosophy means 'the love of knowledge', so this makes sense that you would have no relation to the topic.

originally posted by: Phantom423

All his arguments are old, worn out diatribes that have been refuted over and over ad infinitum. When the real evidence is presented, he simply skips over it as though it never happened.

This is the strategy of the idiots at the Creation Institute - what they forget is that we don't forget!

Lol do you still believe you don't need initial concentrations to determine an age of a sample with the half-life equation? I cannot take you seriously until you admit you're wrong. You will never do it, and it is THAT EXACT CHAUVINISM that prevents real science from progressing. Instead we have you parrots that regurgitate information without being able to critically analyze it. Barcs sends me blog posts to try to prove points, he never came to understand the science of it, he just blindly believes it, because he is incapable of forming his own understanding on the world based on empirical evidence. He simply listens to what others say. And you Phantom, are totally unwilling to admit when you're wrong. You deny basic radiometric science to try to elude your mistake. It is juvenile. Buck up and admit your mistake.

One more time:

Max Planck Quotes (Author of Eight Lectures on Theoretical Physics)

Known for: Planck constant, Planck postulate, Planck's law, Third law of thermodynamics, Fokker–Planck equation
Awards: Nobel Prize in Physics, Max Planck Medal, Copley Medal.........,


“[I do not believe] in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.” ― Max Planck,
The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science
But he also said:
„Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: "On to God!"“
- Max Planck


“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”
― Max Planck



Welcome to the Quantum Matrix,
- AlienView

royal institution Christmas lectures


This might help. Or at least provide a couple of hours edutainment

a reply to: SprocketUK

Thanks for the link. I've seen some of their videos. I particularly like the series on the chemistry of coal.
Thanks again.

originally posted by: cooperton
Those are two blog posts. I asked for empirical evidence, Not blind claims. I tried to go to the research articles that they were citing but it requires a Nature subscription. This shows you are just taking their word for it on blind faith, and never really critiqued the methodology. If this is an overwhelmingly evident fact you should be able to find peer-reviewed articles that are full access.

You are blatant liar! They were articles that referenced actual research, not just blogs!!

www.nature.com...

This was literally linked right in the article and offers full access to the research paper without a subscription. You obviously did not even read it, you dismissed and ignored it out of hand for no reason at all aside from your personal faith. Sorry, you can't say I am blindly believing anything, when I backed up my claims. So dishonest.

You see, this demonstrates your narrow-mindedness, and your lack of balance in various fields of intellectual study. You blindly believe in the science theoreticians, yet you think 'nobody cares what philosophers claim'. Philosophy means 'the love of knowledge', so this makes sense that you would have no relation to the topic.

So I am narrow minded because I don't blindly believe the word of ancient philosophers and theologians over scientific experts and researchers? Yeah, sorry, you committed an appeal to authority fallacy by even using that as an argument. It doesn't counter anything stated by me in this thread, just another fallacy to add to the pile.

originally posted by: Barcs

You are blatant liar! They were articles that referenced actual research, not just blogs!!

Cool it. I said:

originally posted by: cooperton
I tried to go to the research articles that they were citing but it requires a Nature subscription.

Then you said:

www.nature.com...

This was literally linked right in the article and offers full access to the research paper without a subscription.

Which is true, but the two articles that were cited in the paper that claimed the 3.5 billion year old evidence were not accessible:

Source 1
Source 2

This shows you are taking their word on a 3.5 billion year old sample on blind faith, and not analyzing the methods on your own.

So I am narrow minded because I don't blindly believe the word of ancient philosophers and theologians over scientific experts and researchers?

No you are narrow-minded because you blindly believe the words of scientists, and even worse, you ignore all other fields of knowledge which is the definition of narrow-mindedness. Making it the worst is when you denigrate others who are balanced and study multiple fields of epistemology.

originally posted by: cooperton
Which is true, but the two articles that were cited in the paper that claimed the 3.5 billion year old evidence were not accessible:

Source 1
Source 2

This shows you are taking their word on a 3.5 billion year old sample on blind faith, and not analyzing the methods on your own.

Your inability to click on a working link shows I am blindly taking their word? I literally just posted the paper which is chock full of scientific research and you ignored it.

No you are narrow-minded because you blindly believe the words of scientists, and even worse, you ignore all other fields of knowledge which is the definition of narrow-mindedness. Making it the worst is when you denigrate others who are balanced and study multiple fields of epistemology.

What fields of knowledge am I ignoring here? I am very open minded, but the crusade on evolution is laughably wrong and has been for a long time. Closed minded would be ignoring scientific research even after being posted twice for you. You are the furthest thing from balanced, your research is extremely one sided and you are intellectually dishonest. Maybe you will change my mind today and refute that paper for me, but based on past history, I don't see that happening. You will dodge and switch gears to another straw man.

Originally I asked:

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

Yes, this was a bad quesiton - What I should have asked is why is there sometihing called Evoulution happening

You science people do agree it is happening, right? - Scientifically proven, right?


But I'm just an ignorant alien from elsewhere - I don't understand why something happens without demonstrable cause for
it to happen - why, why, why is an apparent process you cal Evolution happening at all ???

Why is there biological life in a universe which your science to date observes as being inorganic ?

Lets's get back to one cell fits all - One cell, one cell, one cell - Evolving into a multitudinous panaroma of biological life

- WHY

No reason why? - Science, if nothing else is why it happens - If you can not demonstrate why a random produced,
One cell, should evolve into a multitudinous pattern of life - Your Evolution is still sitting in the
background to the religious simpletons who say God did ti - And I have no idea why for that one either
- do your?

The problem with theistic explanations is that they are limited, myopic, and often prejudicial
- The problem with scientific explanations of this problem - is that they are attempting to give order to a matrix
whose paradigm is fantastical, if not fantasy, and they will not accept it !

But then again Reality is always dependent upon observation anyway - Isn't it?

So whose fantasy do you choose - Creationism or Evolutiion ?

Evolution like Creationism is a fantasy until proven otherwise - And it can not be proven otherwise until you
can tell us why you are here


“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

a reply to: AlienView

And no one posted any evidence of intelligent design or divine meddling either. So that's still not a viable hypothesis. Which leaves evolution as the leading contender yet again.

So to conclude this exercise in futility - As it is futile to expect real intelligence out of Man
- With rare exceptions the Human mind has not evolved there yet - But it is so programed so as to do so eventually!

In the real World, a hypothetical state that does not exist in real time as real time can never be defined in an
absolute sense and is always relative - Man exists in a World between pure fantasy and absolutle science.

Pure fantasy not backed by science is meaningless - By the same token science without imagination is an empty shell
- that would only have meaning in an empty universe - The Universe is not empty - is it not? - Let's hope your
mind is also not empty and can accept the relative nature of all that exists


“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”
― Arthur C. Clarke

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
― Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry Into the Limits of the Possible


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand,
while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
― Albert Einstein



Let us hope Human that you will continue to evolve
so we may meet again in the future where we can talk as equals.
From a future World, in another dimension,
- AlienView

originally posted by: Barcs

You immediately default to the same fallacious logic as Coop. You assume the bacteria today is the same as it was 3.5 billion years ago, which is a preposterous notion. Where is your evidence for that claim?

I'm arguing from what we know, not what other supposedly 'different' biological systems, cell-types or organisms we can imagine when using wishful thinking; or arguing from agnosticism, so to speak. As if our ignorance regarding what organisms were exactly like 3.5 billion years ago is an excuse to deem anything we want to imagine as possible or even a plausible or likely possibility, a serious proposal in the sciences. Your* supposed 'simpler' organisms are as mythological as pink unicorns. *: Even though you conveniently don't spell out "simpler" but vaguely imply 'different' without further specifics instead, it's still what evolutionists need and expect people to imagine to make it sound more plausible that cyanobacteria arose gradually from much simpler beginnings, or as astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe put it: “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” of course they mean "(fans of) evolutionary philosophies" rather than "biology". Just before saying: “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.).

I don't need to invent their (different unknown unresearched and unspecified cyanobacteria or cyanobacteria-like organisms) existence to save a failed idea about a direction from starting with something "very simple" and then gradually evolving into a more complex system, cell or organism to make that idea sound more plausible, to market or sell that idea (and then contradict and deny that required direction on other occasions by claiming that "evolution has no direction"; QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?). Quoting from the arguments I've heard from fans of evolutionary philosophies with a pagan religious origin.

If you want to suggest cyanobacteria or whatever organism left these remains were so different 3.5 billion years ago that the machinery I brought up becomes irrelevant, the burden of proof is on you to provide both specifics regarding the question "how different?" and the evidence that such a lifeform would even be viable, as in able to survive and reproduce without the machinery such as the ATP-synthase machine I brought up for example, or another means to fuel the cell or organism with one of the most basic requirements for life. Maybe that's why you carefully avoided making such a claim and left it nice and vague pretending that it's on me to prove they are the same when you've provided nothing to suggest they're not, or that they didn't have any of the machinery I used as examples to have a look at regarding the commentary made by Fred Hoyle and the other one talking about the same "Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks"; if those remains are actually from cyanobacteria and not a matter of 'looks can be deceiving'. I've seen the pictures of the fossils and saw nothing in the pictures to suggest that the basic machinery within cyanobacteria-cells that we know of is very different from cyanobacteria in the past, regarding the cyanobacteria these fossils are compared with and for sake of argumentation, assuming it's not a matter of 'looks can be deceiving'. You'd probably also have to provide some reason why your suggested different lifeform with perhaps no machinery at all (cause that's what it'll take to support philosophical naturalism and accompanying evolutionary philosophies), still has anything to do with the pictures of these "fossil residues", since those are the organisms you should be discussing if you bring them up yourself as your prime piece of evidence that they evolved into modern-day cyanobacteria (implying they were quite different 3.5 billion years ago, so different, that the machinery I brought up becomes irrelevant in any evaluation of this evolutionary idea).

Complexity of DNA is not enough to demonstrate design/designer.

Agreed, but since that's a response to a straw man version of the argument for creation it's a moot point and pointless to discuss again. I personally have a hunch you and others here are quite aware of what the real argument of induction is. And the whole word "complexity" doesn't even have to appear in that argument, as it never does when I spell it out cause I know it's a triggerword regarding the conditioning with that straw man version of the argument for creation (or design, I prefer to say creation cause that's the part that matters most and I'm not part of the group of people that refer to themselves as "intelligent design proponents". I don't even like the redundancy in the term "intelligent design" cause it's giving in to this ridiculous notion that something can be honestly and unambiguously* called a "design" without intelligence being involved in the act of designing it, or it not even having been designed, the way Stephen Hawking did it when he referred to the universe as "The Grand Design" in his book with that title; allthough I recognize the need to remind some people that anything that is a design has been designed by at least 1 designer with a sufficient level of intelligence, technological know-how and knowledge that corresponds with the design in question, not to mention the subjects of foresight, will and purpose also being involved, otherwise the word "design" doesn't apply and you're not being entirely honest in the way you explain and choose to phrase things, like Stephen Hawking).

*: unambiguously: without an attempt to obscure, deceive or capitalize on the ambiguity of language the way propagandists do to bend rules of logic, distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

Btw, I used the word "evolutionists" in this comment as short for "fans of evolutionary philosophies" (both the ones with degrees and those without). And if I'm going to change what Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe said to something that is more agreeable to me regarding the way it's phrased I would go with: "The problem for fans of evolutionary philosophies is to find and present evidence of a simple(r) beginning (than the evidence we have found shows)”. Or perhaps I'd type that out as 2 sentences with the "simpler" variation in a seperate sentence. But then again, it doesn't seem to be much of a "problem" to them, even with zip, nada, noppes (as evidence), to back them up, many people will still believe the evolutionary philosophies they so desperately want to believe in and they've been conditioned to believe makes them smart or intelligent if they believe them (sometimes without acknowledging that "belief" but preferring to phrase that as "know" or "accept...as the most likely scenario, model, theory, whatever").

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: SprocketUK

Thanks for the link. I've seen some of their videos. I particularly like the series on the chemistry of coal.
Thanks again.

They were a huge part of my Christmasses growing up. The RI and World's strongest man shows are when you know it is the season of goodwill haha

a reply to: Barcs
Or the shorter reply:

I'm arguing from what we know, not fantasy.

Come to think of it, the biomolecular machinery and systems of machinery I used as examples to have a look at remain relevant as the endproduct of any evolutionary storyline regarding the origin and subsequent development of cyanobacteria (and all the evolutionary stages in between that you won't talk about or provide a nice bedtime story around some fossils that are all supposedly in the chain from these 3.5 billion year old organisms to modern cyanobacteria, showing us a nice progression as shown in the famous ape-to-man picture, or more complete pictures of some version or part of the evolutionary tree of life, of which there are many, cause getting the story straight, isn't a priority here).

Perhaps it's a good idea to get your story straight first as well, or some more detail, cause you've made a vague referral concerning some evidence for step 1,000,000 or something in the evolutionary storyline (starting with cyanobacteria or cyanobacteria-like organisms 3.5 billion years ago whose pictures of fossil residues look pretty similar to pictures of modern cyanobacteria used by those presenting the relevant evidence, suggesting no notable difference in basic machinery within those cells; allthough I had to dig up that information for myself based on the clue: "Fossils of single celled life" 3.5 billion year old) and then claimed they have been evolving...[and there it stops] into...[no detail]... step 1,000,000,000 about now I presume? Or did you? Even that wasn't clear, did the organisms represented by those "fossil residues" evolve into modern cyanobacteria? Do you want to use those "fossil residues" as evidence to imply that there are millions of evolutionary steps (generations of different types of organisms that are all changing towards something different as the endproduct) in between those suggested organisms and modern cyanobacteria? And if not, where does the word "evolution" or "evolving" apply in all this? Especially if we're still talking about cyanobacteria that have remained cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years, or aren't we allowed to contemplate that possibility?

You don't seem to present much convincing evidence or argumentation for your claim:

Fossils of single celled life has been discovered that dates 3.5 billion + years back. That backs up the claim that they have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years.

How does the subject of existence 3.5 billion years ago back up "evolving for at least 3.5 billion years" in the timeframe for which you present no fossilized evidence? Or any other details? So let's say those fossil residues represent evidence for the existence of cyanobacteria 3.5 billion years ago, where's the evidence for what happened in between (what your claim is about)? Especially if comparing pictures with modern day cyanobacteria with these fossil residues provide no evidence or clues of any significant change (or difference) in structure and features.

I hope you're not going to conveniently switch to the definition "changing over time" for "evolving" now. I think that would give the game you're playing away a little too easily. In some of my questions above I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the "fossils of single celled life" you are vaguely referring to are the fossil residues of cyanobacteria. Who apparently then evolved into....cyanobacteria. Marvelous. Mother Nature impresses me with her wisdom.

Seeing that cyanobacteria are quite a bit more sturdy than humans and fit for survival. Makes one wonder though, why humans? Pardon the sarcasm. Considering some of the overarching evolutionary philosophies, we (humans, plants and animals) should have all evolved into bacteria already, not the other way around as suggested in most of the evolutionary storylines that dare to go back that far.

Anyway, you didn't say much more about this storyline to evaluate or consider. So I guess I just have to fill in the details myself.