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

originally posted by: AlienView
What driving force ceaselessly drives an experiment - And drives that experiment in directions that have to be
seen as creative?

Well, yes. When scientists are testing things and actively trying to demonstrate how a chemical process works, they will have to be creative and try tons of different combinations of factors and environmental conditions. If the experiment is successful, it can happen in those conditions. So if those conditions can be compatible with early earth's environment the hypothesis remains viable.

what force in this universe is driving its obvious tendency to create - Survival of the fittest is not enough
- And maybe if there is one lesson Evolution can give to all no matter their inclinations
- It's never enough !

Why is a force needed for that? Humans evolved intelligent brains capable of creative problem solving. That, along with our thumbs made us the most capable species on the planet. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the "good enough" and sometimes just survival of the lucky.

originally posted by: AlienView
"How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?"


As the OP, and after due consideration of the opinions so far expressed - Let me surmise my conclusion:

!. Evoulution does not explain male and female - But then again what does Evolution really explain ???

2. As to 'Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Varisations?' - That's an assumption, two sexes may breed
- But they do not create.

Genetic variations are now being created by a Chiniese sceintist - Up to and before this point it may as well have been
'Aliens' from another world engaged in an experiment - And why they are doing this and what the expected
outcome may be - For that you will have to ask them.

- AlienView

Yep. I am not a creationist nor am I a proponant of scientific dogma. Let's be honest, yes? (Sacred Text) Creationism Vs. Scientific Theory of Evolution is a basic bifurcation fallacy.

The answer could be either, neither, all of, some of or none of these two ideas.

Science, being conducted by humans, is subject to human error, ego, politics and every other human weakness. Accurate science would require some kind of completely unbiased AI.

Observe how arrogant and dismissive many of the "pro science" posters on this thread come across. As insulated and closed minded as many religious people are.

Science is like a man finding 3 puzzle pieces and in an exercise of ego goes on to describe in great detail what image the entire puzzle showed, how many pieces it consisted of, how the pieces were created, how they assembled themselves and the meaning of the puzzle.

When it's actually quite possible sometimes we don't have and maybe will never have enough puzzle pieces to know any of these things.

Consider how science changed with the invention of microscopes and telescopes.

What if there are 10 more senses possible than what humans have currently that would open an entire new universe of possibilities.

Science dismisses, ignores or pretends to have the answers to the biggest questions but ultimately it is very deeply unsatisfying for many people and leads often to a nihilistic world view.

Organized religion is not really better, offering specific answers to the big questions but requiring a rejection of logic and reason and demonizing doubt.

Personally, I think if we ever find the answers to the mysteries, (and maybe we aren't even able to) it will be something like: Aliens created us as an experiment and subsequently abandoned us...

Regarding this thread, even if Cooperton carries the argument, establishing there is a "creator" or intelligent "first cause" does not in any way establish that the creator is benign, biblical or anything other than unknown and possibly unknowable, and certainly hypothetical at best.

Maybe the Aliens will return someday and follow-up on the experiment..



And subsequently lead us off to serve as slave labor on their home world. 😮

Now to sum up what this experimental post [all thinking posts that require speculative thought are experimental]
-as you are experimental.

There is no soidly scientific reason for you to be reading or contributing to this post, as there is no solidly scientific
reason for you to exist, for the Universe, time, space, energy and matter to exist
- In fact there is no solidly scientific reason for existence to exist

But you are here, you are reading and/or contributing to the experiment - Originally only questioning the existence
of male and female - We are now questioning the reason for existence itself.

You will not find a scientific answer to this question for in final analysis - Existence itself is SUPERNATURAL

and can not be explained by science - There is no Unified Field, String Theory, or whatever name you want to give
it that will explain a supernatural state.


So if the Creationists want to say 'God created' let them - You will not prove otherwise as you are part of the
experiment..

And 'the great Scientist in the sky' loves to experiment - right?

The existent state may not make scientists or theists happy - But better you be aware of what it is.
- So you who believe in religion can come up with better prayers to postulate for the future as religion, like science
and existence itself must continue to evolve.

- And you who believe only in science become aware of your limitations.



“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
― Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

originally posted by: WSC2020
Science, being conducted by humans, is subject to human error, ego, politics and every other human weakness. Accurate science would require some kind of completely unbiased AI.

Nobody ever claimed science was perfect, but it's a good method for figuring stuff out, much better than blind faith method or the "believe old stories from the past" method. If you have a better method, I'm all ears.

Observe how arrogant and dismissive many of the "pro science" posters on this thread come across. As insulated and closed minded as many religious people are.

No sorry. The arrogance always comes from the people who DENY science. They literally just "know" it's wrong, but yet NEVER address the evidence or explain why. They are programmed to hate it and thus regurgitate all the mantras they hear from their snake oil salesmen of choice, but never ever refute the facts or data.

Science is like a man finding 3 puzzle pieces and in an exercise of ego goes on to describe in great detail what image the entire puzzle showed, how many pieces it consisted of, how the pieces were created, how they assembled themselves and the meaning of the puzzle.

There is no ego involved in following evidence and experiments. Do you have a better way????

Science dismisses, ignores or pretends to have the answers to the biggest questions but ultimately it is very deeply unsatisfying for many people and leads often to a nihilistic world view.

Something tells me you never lifted a finger to look into science or how it works. Nihilism has nothing to do with observing and testing evidence, pal.

originally posted by: AlienView
There is no soidly scientific reason for you to be reading or contributing to this post, as there is no solidly scientific
reason for you to exist, for the Universe, time, space, energy and matter to exist
- In fact there is no solidly scientific reason for existence to exist

Actually there is. It's called the big bang theory, inflation, abiogenesis and evolution. There is no solidly scientific reason for a god or higher intelligence to exist and that is the major dilemma creationists have.

You will not find a scientific answer to this question for in final analysis - Existence itself is SUPERNATURAL

How so? Which part of existence is supernatural to you and can be confirmed as such? If you are just saying, "I don't get it, therefor X," I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't work.

a reply to: WSC2020

Accurate science would require some kind of completely unbiased AI.

It would be very interesting if we entered all relevant scientific data into that new Summit super computer and asked to come up with it's choice of a theory based on everything we have. Probably take 5 years to enter all the data.

I would especially be interested to see what it would say about abiogenesis.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: WSC2020

I would especially be interested to see what it would say about abiogenesis.

There's only one real supercomputer anyway:

Just as many parents feel awkward about discussing where babies come from, some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question​—Where did life come from? Receiving a credible answer to that question can have a profound effect on a person’s outlook on life. So how did life begin?

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
...
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?

That's why I'm expecting a guru meditation software failure after entering in the non-existing "emperical evidence" and non-existing "advance in scientific knowledge" that "leads in this direction" (abiogenesis) in the hypothetical super computer scenario you were responding to. Of course, you can't enter in something that doesn't exist but I guess one could always enter in their imaginations, fantasies and wishful thinking in the program, as this simulation does (after the usual attempts to seperate the topic of evolution from the topic of abiogenesis or the origin of life, and even attempts to seperate the topic of "spontaneous generation" from "abiogenesis"; i.e. the usual cards being played and capitalization on the ambiguity of language, twisting history to set up and tell their altered version of history):

Just deny or ignore the actual facts (evidence) brought up by Alexandre Meinesz (and he's not the only one). But no matter who brings it up, it remains a fact 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.” (more years since he said that, come to think of it, since the idea has been around longer with less effort to provide evidence for it but still enough effort to promote the idea previously referred to as "spontaneous generation", you can pretty much count a couple of thousand years; perhaps around or approaching 3000 if you go back to the roots of this myth; it's amazing how some myths can remain popular over thousands of years without those marketing it ever providing some reasonable evidence to support it, when it's something that 'tickles people's ears' as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4)

a reply to: whereislogic

"Just deny or ignore the actual facts (evidence) brought up by Alexandre Meinesz (and he's not the only one). But no matter who brings it up, it remains a fact 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.” (more years since he said that, come to think of it, since the idea has been around longer with less effort to provide evidence for it but still enough effort to promote the idea previously referred to as "spontaneous generation", you can pretty much count a couple of thousand years; perhaps around or approaching 3000 if you go back to the roots of this myth; it's amazing how some myths can remain popular over thousands of years without those marketing it ever providing some reasonable evidence to support it, when it's something that 'tickles people's ears' as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4)"



But don't you see? - Your are up against 'the fundamentalist religion of Atheism' - True believers in this cause do not need
evidence or facts - evidence and facts can be twisted to 'prove' their dead universe can come alive as if by magic'
- you see, much more so than any religion Atheism believes in a supernatural magic

originally posted by: AlienView
But don't you see? - Your are up against 'the fundamentalist religion of Atheism' - True believers in this cause do not need
evidence or facts - evidence and facts can be twisted to 'prove' their dead universe can come alive as if by magic'
- you see, much more so than any religion Atheism believes in a supernatural magic

Atheism is not a religion and not fundamentalist. It's literally just not believing the claim that god exists. Just because atheists point out logical flaws in faulty arguments used to "prove" god exists, and refute false claims about evolution and science made by theists does NOT mean they claim atheism is an absolute fact or that it has been proved. Theists are the ones doing the twisting of facts. Atheists just call out the BS when they see it, because most are skeptics. You never see them going around screaming about how atheism is absolute truth and making up all kinds of weak excuses like theists do. They just don't buy claims that can't be justified or verified.

a reply to: Barcs

Really? - Live and learn.

[Abstract]

Is Atheism a Religion?
"Atheism fits both theoretical and practical definitions of religion."

“[Religion is] a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values.” –Catherine L. Albanese

The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists. Many atheists would tack “and this material world is governed by natural, understandable laws” onto the end of that creed. This creed, when laid out in simple terms, looks a great deal like the tenets of any other religion. These tenets, then, are how atheists in general “orient themselves in the world.” These three beliefs govern atheists’ lives and are used to help them make sense of both everyday phenomenon and to study that which is not yet understood. In the same way as other religions, atheists work to fit the entirety of their experience into their worldview. What other people experience as miracles, atheists turn inside out in an effort to explain with natural law, and they insist that there is a way to explain the unexplainable with their creed. Other religions attempt to make sense of the world in the same way.

“A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” –Clifford Geertz

“Symbols” is a somewhat vague term, but the rest of the definition is clear. Religion is a pattern of thought in people that helps them understand the world and becomes so ingrained in them that anything else seems unnatural. This is atheism to a tee.

Atheism has “conceptions of a general order of existence.” Those conceptions are generally the natural laws that science has identified. Just like some of the basic tenets in other religions, most atheists do not question these basic underlying assumptions. They cannot bring themselves to question neither natural laws nor the idea that life is based solely upon them even when those natural laws have been shown to be flawed and imperfect. When confronted with that fact, atheists will do the same mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs that they accuse Christians of doing when confronted with an unpleasant Bible verse..........

Quote source:
www.beliefnet.com...



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, MORE.......

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . .We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck, The New Science


PS: Max Planck, like Einstein, did not believe in a religious god concept - But also like Einstein, was not a religious Atheist
- Geniuses of the past were smart enough to realize the inability to prove the existence of a creator does not negate the possibility.



"Anything is possible - But nothing is certain"

a reply to: AlienView

Beliefnet.com huh? I'm sure they are presenting a valid unbiased description of atheism.

Sorry but it is wrong right off the bat:

The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists.

An atheist is DEFINED as one who disbelieves or lacks belief in god/deities. It has nothing to do with beliefs about an afterlife nor is strict materialism required. Buddhists are atheists but believe in life after death.

Atheism is lack of one belief. It is not a belief system in itself, although there are atheistic religions out there. There is no dogma for atheism, no symbols, no ceremonies, an atheist can believe in thousands of other possible things, it just can't include god. There is a very diverse amount of such beliefs. What they are saying is like calling theism a religion. Theism is not a religion in itself, it is one belief which has thousands of belief systems.

Also there is no requirement of an atheist to accept or live by science, so you can throw that straw man in the trash. I've met science denying atheists. They do exist. All that makes somebody an atheist is they don't buy the claim that god exists. That website was pure propaganda and completely misrepresents atheism.

originally posted by: Barcs

Atheists just call out the BS when they see it, because most are skeptics. ... They just don't buy claims that can't be justified or verified.

Hmm, the prominent or most famous ones must have missed this BS then, since I didn't hear them about it, of course, these are 2 of the most famous ones selling the BS (or nonsense is what I would call it):

Nor have I heard much from some of the most famous self-professed "atheists" when Stephen Hawking was selling the same nonsense in his book "The Grand Design" (relevant from 16:13 - 23:04):

Nor do I hear much skepticism in response to claims or the impression given by some that there is a "significant advance in scientific knowledge" in the field of abiogenesis* that shows that it's plausible or even possible. *: a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life"

a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe if you got your information from their actual work instead of biased cherry picked youtube videos and Jehovah's Witness propaganda, you could make an argument, but you just repeat the same mantras.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: whereislogic

Maybe if you got your information from their actual work instead of biased cherry picked youtube videos and Jehovah's Witness propaganda, you could make an argument, but you just repeat the same mantras.

Actually so do you - But I did not start this post to perpetuate the long running debate betweeen many Evolutionists
and ID'ers.

I simply asked: "How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?"

And I still remain perplexed - Let's take the Evolutionist point that lfe originated by A lucky [os so destined] mix that occurred in the early chemical soup of the universe - OK, I'll grant that is possible.

But what I don't understand is why it perpetuated itself? - Is there really a magical [to me] chemical trigger that
causes a will to self-perpetuation? - What is it?

And then the directions this self-perpetuation takes, including the production of a variety of species - Why?

And this initial cell that began all life - Why did it want to live? - OK, tell me the original cell had no 'want' and
just occurred - Again OK, but now you have a variety of species that struggle to survive with 'survival of the fittest'
continiuing the species that survive - Why? - What force of will, and you are definitely talking abour 'a force of will'
cauxses these species to perpetrate themselve and continue the struggle for survival?

- And from whence does this will force, this will to survive and breed , originate

Does Evolution really explain the forces that are perpetuating it?

I don't' think so - I think that until you can show what force generates life and its perpetuation
- The answer remains SUPERNATURAL

[by supernatural I mean - no completely natural or scientific answer is adequate or completely provable]

a reply to: AlienView

I think until you are able to sufficiently define and demonstrate a supernatural force at work, we have no logical choice but to accept the results of the scientific method.

Last I checked, private parts are irreducibly complex so evolution's explanation is bunk.

originally posted by: AlienView
And I still remain perplexed - Let's take the Evolutionist point that lfe originated by A lucky [os so destined] mix that occurred in the early chemical soup of the universe - OK, I'll grant that is possible.

But what I don't understand is why it perpetuated itself? - Is there really a magical [to me] chemical trigger that
causes a will to self-perpetuation? - What is it?

This guy gets it. Relying on luck to just magically combine the right chemicals at the right times in perfect succession is a like ten google to 1. Chemicals are basically magic when you just expect consciousness to sprout up out of nothing. It's like a rock basically transformed into a skull that just happened to be filled with a complex brain, and people just believe there is no higher power involved?

originally posted by: Toothache
Last I checked, private parts are irreducibly complex so evolution's explanation is bunk.

I think I have now finally understood what "irreducibly complex" really means: a statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist. —Björn Brembs, biologist

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

I think until you are able to sufficiently define and demonstrate a supernatural force at work, we have no logical choice but to accept the results of the scientific method.

Yet people who rely entirely on the scientific method for truth are dying with an incomplete understanding of the world. You idolize the scientific method, but it has not brought fulfillment to anyone, and has left the dying people of the world without an answer.

originally posted by: cooperton
You idolize the scientific method, but it has not brought fulfillment to anyone

WHAT? You want the scientific method to fulfill your pipe dream fantasy? How long are you guys doing to cling to belief systems of the ancient past and use it to dismiss science? Time to upgrade your grey matter.

Science has brought us TONS more things than religion ever has as a species. Science doesn't help fulfill your life? Fine. Stop using the internet, computers, medicine, cars, A/C, heat, and clean water. Also by all means go back to hunting your own food and see how fulfilled your life is. Science doesn't deal with fantasy concepts and things that have ZERO supporting evidence (ie god / ID), so using that as an excuse to attack it is beyond silly. Science actually works. Praying to imaginary friends do not.