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

a reply to: cooperton

The truly fascinating part here will be watching you propose an alternative solution to the rise of sexual reproduction and offering empirical observable evidence to support your claims and demonstrate conclusively the supernatural element in this equation. Until then, a closer look at how mitosis could have evolved through a sequence of natural events.

academic.oup.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: cooperton

You see this is what you do when i present empirical dilemmas to evolution.

Which one would that be???? We haven't seen you post anything except your own opinion which, as we all know, is backed up by zilch. Using big words doesn't lend credibility when you don't know what they mean.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

The truly fascinating part here will be watching you propose an alternative solution to the rise of sexual reproduction and offering empirical observable evidence to support your claims and demonstrate conclusively the supernatural element in this equation.

Haha so your defense of your theory is scrutinizing other ideas? Stay on topic. Argue my points regarding gastropod sex organs.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
academic.oup.com...

from your source:

"The origin of meiosis, and in particular meiotic recombination, is an unresolved mystery in biology"

So there's your answer. Again, I would like to hear you propose a mechanism, but you have forfeited your ability to think for your self and given it to the white coat priests.

"We therefore hypothesize that meiotic recombination arose from bacterial transformation"

Yet not one meiotic bacteria has ever been observed. It is therefore based in their imagination, and not any empirical observable fact. You guys believe this stuff blindly. Your faith always astounds me. "The white coats said it, so it must be true."

a reply to: cooperton

from your source:

Where's your source???

a reply to: cooperton

Yet not one meiotic bacteria has ever been observed. It is therefore based in their imagination, and not any empirical observable fact. You guys believe this stuff blindly. Your faith always astounds me. "The white coats said it, so it must be true."

So you're absolutely sure of that. Want me to post the source now or later? Your choice. I'm preparing a compendium of your opinions vs the real sources which have context and evidence . It will certainly be extensive. It will be quite a show.

a reply to: cooperton

So there's your answer. Again, I would like to hear you propose a mechanism, but you have forfeited your ability to think for your self and given it to the white coat priests.

What about your mechanism? Who ever tested it? Is it real? Does it work? It's just your opinion with no evidence, no science and no experiments to validate your opinion.

I'll take a "white coat priest" any day over a black hooded scammer hiding under a rock.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Yet not one meiotic bacteria has ever been observed. It is therefore based in their imagination, and not any empirical observable fact. You guys believe this stuff blindly. Your faith always astounds me. "The white coats said it, so it must be true."

So you're absolutely sure of that. Want me to post the source now or later? Your choice. I'm preparing a compendium of your opinions vs the real sources which have context and evidence . It will certainly be extensive. It will be quite a show.

In its own thread I do hope...

Ye don't want it to get lost in the fray

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

The truly fascinating part here will be watching you propose an alternative solution to the rise of sexual reproduction and offering empirical observable evidence to support your claims and demonstrate conclusively the supernatural element in this equation.

Haha so your defense of your theory is scrutinizing other ideas? Stay on topic. Argue my points regarding gastropod sex organs.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
academic.oup.com...

from your source:

"The origin of meiosis, and in particular meiotic recombination, is an unresolved mystery in biology"

So there's your answer. Again, I would like to hear you propose a mechanism, but you have forfeited your ability to think for your self and given it to the white coat priests.

"We therefore hypothesize that meiotic recombination arose from bacterial transformation"

Yet not one meiotic bacteria has ever been observed. It is therefore based in their imagination, and not any empirical observable fact. You guys believe this stuff blindly. Your faith always astounds me. "The white coats said it, so it must be true."

You are right that this is certainly a mystery, as all modern science was once a mystery. You've successfully located a gap in biology that is surely being remedied.

And again I will ask you, what is your proposed alternative to the theory of evolution. Perhaps you can lay the great debate to rest at long last with the appropriate solution. Show us where some great force of cosmic genius may be clearly and conclusively measured in the evolution of sexual reproduction between male and female.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Thanks for the reply Coope.
Was considering it a bit differently.

Am not sure how gastropods 'supposedly' evolved.
But thought that it might be pertinent, because of the possibility that a species could evolve, (if species do evolve), from a self-replicating, self-reproducing organisms, to slowly developing different sexual organs, while still self-reproducing, until they reach the stage where the ones that reproduce via the opposing organs, become stronger, and/or more diverse, and eventually the hermaphrodites die-out.

(Man that was a long sentence! Sorry.)

Gastropods exist, so why not?

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely: opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).

Yeah we were trained from a young age in elementary biology classes to perceive everything from an evolutionary lens. "It exists, therefore evolution must have done it". This fallacy assumes evolution is true, and tries to fit everything under that scope, when it actuality the observable evidence in a lab does not give us any reason to believe that such leaps would be possible.

To scope-in on the gastropod, it would have needed both male and female organs still to reproduce in the manner that it does. Think how hard it would be even to create a male snail sex organ by random chance... and this is a snail we're talking about, a relatively simple organism:

take for example on the cellular level. You would need a male sex cell and a female sex cell (each contain half the genetic material of regular non-sex cells), which are formed by the process of meiosis. So here's the first hurdle from asexual to sexual reproduction.. where does meiosis come from? Even if an organism does manage to somehow manifest the many proteins required for meiosis, what is even directing these sex cells in the right place?? For example, If meiosis happened in the eyes that would be horrible for the organism. So the gastropod would have needed a new appendage (male sex organ) along with the necessary microcellular mechanisms to create sex cells.

That is just the very basics, and even that is such a long shot, it would be unimaginable to reproduce in a lab, because we have had nothing even close to demonstrating that such a leap would be possible. But let's say for argument sake that a miracle happens and we have a fully functioning male sex organ... We would still need the counterpart female sex organ - immediately, because a male organ is useless without the female organ. The female organ would need cellular meiotic eggs that would have some sort of way of rejecting foreign debris while still being able to recognize the male gamete (sex cell).

None of this has ever been observed in a lab: the leap from mitosis to meiosis (in a formerly non-meiotic organism), or the leap from no sexual organ to a sexual organ, and especially not the simultaneous development of both!! Evolution is therefore far out of the realm of possibility

Agreed that assumptions are usually not truth. Or are we assuming that? LoL.

Don't know what the gastropod would have need to become, but there it is.
Have about 10 of them here, in two small aquariums.
For something that appears relatively slow: it's surprising to see them get-around the whole tank.

Whatever the origin, there they are. And they reproduce. No magical wands, or assumptions needed.
After 30 pages: seems like nobody knows why.
We go though mental gymnastics, and some convince themselves of the unknowable.

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely: opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).

Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution “Theory”

"In Time magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science” and “we can call evolution a ‘fact.’” This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. Yet, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution".............

"Fossils disprove evolution One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing".
............

"Evolution—A solution by default:
Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?"

See whole article here:
creationtoday.org...


But as an Evolutionist you can completely reject the Supernatural - You know why the Universe occurred, right?

Yuu know why an organic cell occurred in an otherwise matrix of inorganic matter?

- And most important you can reproduce this first cell that lived and breathed, show why it began to reproduce itself,
how it then, as if by magic, mutated into more and more complex lifeforms and how all these lifeforms learned to
defend 'their' way of existence, their need to survive, and while You Human are sitting here now claiming that your
incomplete, and often inaccurate science, has all the answers - In a Universe that you also have the audacity
to claim has nothing SUPERNATURAL to offer

The sorrow and the pity is that most Humans' intelligence can not evolve fast enough to save their own species

Anyone for developing [creating] a smarter brain for Humans? - Maybe you should try praying for it
- While there is still time

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'm preparing a compendium of your opinions vs the real sources which have context and evidence . It will certainly be extensive. It will be quite a show.

Sounds obsessive. maybe get some exercise instead?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'm preparing a compendium of your opinions vs the real sources which have context and evidence . It will certainly be extensive. It will be quite a show.

Sounds obsessive. maybe get some exercise instead?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I consider it a public service.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Yet not one meiotic bacteria has ever been observed. It is therefore based in their imagination, and not any empirical observable fact. You guys believe this stuff blindly. Your faith always astounds me. "The white coats said it, so it must be true."

So you're absolutely sure of that. Want me to post the source now or later? Your choice. I'm preparing a compendium of your opinions vs the real sources which have context and evidence . It will certainly be extensive. It will be quite a show.

In its own thread I do hope...

Ye don't want it to get lost in the fray

Good idea. Maybe a sticky too!

a reply to: AlienView

Pointless argument. We know creationists try to point out holes, but they fail at it 99.99% of the time because they don't have enough knowledge on the subject.

still no answer on the question of "if not evolution, then how? please show your work and provide examples" which is a very curious silence from the anti evolution crowd.

a reply to: TzarChasm

This is SOP (standard operating procedure) - clam up, disappear into the aether, make believe you never saw the question, wait long enough and everyone will forget it anyway. However, we do not forget.

We need an accountability thread. People make outrageous statements that can't be backed up with evidence. Inevitably, someone replies with contradicting evidence but is totally ignored. At least with a specific thread calling out those who would rather remain behind the curtain, there will be an archive where everyone can post when this happens to them.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
still no answer on the question of "if not evolution, then how? please show your work and provide examples" which is a very curious silence from the anti evolution crowd.

If a theory is shown to be invalid and not plausible, it shouldn't be kept around. Considering we can't replicate the complexity of living organisms, it would be silly to think we could understand the mechanism of how they were created. Evolution is insufficient because it's theorized mechanism could not have manifested the complex interdependent organs, tissues, cells, and proteins that rely on each other to maintain proper function.

If you cannot comprehend material things, you will not be able to understand the immaterial that made it.

a reply to: cooperton

Pretty sure its been states many many times that evolution doesn't involve creation...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

Pretty sure its been states many many times that evolution doesn't involve creation...

Evolution involves the creation of new organisms from old organisms. You guys argue semantics because you can't argue hard facts.

a reply to: cooperton

Different organisms. Yes.
And those differences add up.