Evolution thread.

Only believers will accept that Jesus is lord. So what?

Knock yourself out.

http://creationtoday.org/searchcreation/?q=Fossil record

http://creationtoday.org/searchcreation/?q=Evolution

My goal in this thread is to show that macro evolution is unscientific.

What?

Again, what?

Depending on what you mean. Ultimately I want them to be saved.

 

But you haven't show'd me the process.

I accept the scientific method. That's why I think evolution is unscientific.

I'm not arguing against the method, I'm arguing with evolution.

Be specific and show me the evidence from DNA or fossils.

Again. This is my thread and its up to you to bring the evidence here. Just as easily I can find evidence for evolution using google I can also find evidence for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you knew what I meant. I meant their generations.

 

That link didnt explained much but why would that not be the case?
http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-11-argument-evolution-of-sex

 

Scientific method says the onus is on proof that the theory is false or on providing a competing scientific theory that more reliably describes "how". You haven't done that. Scientific method says that in general there is no way to prove a theory is true.

Evolution is a huge topic, and you can ask questions literally forever. This isn't your only technical question so far and it certainly won't be your last.

So, as I've mentioned before we really need to stick to scientific method. Otherwise, we're just continuing to spend time on me showing you where to find the answer you are looking for - a process you can do for yourself. We've already spent a HUGE amount of time on that.


This is your thread (I suppose people own threads??), but the issue rightly involves scientific method and you are making claims of accepting scientific method. Beyond that, surely scientific method (as opposed to religious method) is the core of this thread. So, surely my answers can rightly be constrained to that.

 

The paper describes how bacterial transformation could be responsible for the recombination process that is central to eukaryote meiosis, which is how sexual reproduction got started. Do you really think that your lack of understanding is an argument against evolution? Maybe you should take the time to learn the biology behind papers like this before you try to refute them.

Now you're just looking desperate. Your link tries to disprove evolution by arguing against a PBS television miniseries explaining what sexual reproduction is, as if that was all science had to say about the subject. Again, you have a lot to learn before you can even being to question evolution.

 

No. You provide the evidence and I'll accept it. But all you provided was download that I had to pay in order to see it.

Ok, how about this?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_120-127.pdf

 

I gave two links dealing with that. Would you like me to get an article from them?

Which is why I want to stay on topic, excluding stuff like the Big Bang.

Which I'm in favor of. And because I'm in favor of it is the reason I'm against evolution.

Again, I'm in favor of the scientific method.

 

Exactly my point.
Agree with me about Genesis is stated in the genealogy.
Set aside your attack on Science with the goal of then saying, fine, evolution is wrong and my private interpretation of Genesis 4 and 5 ignores this was evolution.

Let's get the next generation to see that sexual promiscuity destroys dominant nations, even America.

 

You say you are in favor of scientific method.

But, your cites all use religious logic instead.

For example, your pdf on origin of sexual procreation poses problems (I'm guessing that you never followed up to find answers from science), but it does NOT use scientific method. For instance, it states a conclusion without there ever having been a hypothesis, it states god as a concludion, which can not be the concludion for ANY hypothesis. Also, it starts out with a monumentally biased diatribe on the 50% rule - a well known bit of nonsense, as the "child" gets a full 100% compliment of genetic material, and the fact that it comes from two sources is an obvious advantage - not a disadvantage.

Your next step must be to find a paper on this subject that DOES use scientific method. Or, I suppose you could change your mind about liking scientific method.

Also, please keep in mind that "we don't know" is an acceptable result of science - while "god did it" is not. I assume you remember our discussions on why (limits of proof, requirements of proof of falsity). If you see "God did it" you know it is religion, not science. Science has no way to test what a god might or might not do.

 

And here I thought you might have come to learn something.

No body said science was easy. If you're going to dispute the work of scientists, you'll have to put in the

Pitiful.

Sexual reproduction may only pass along 50% of the parent's genetic material, but the combination of two slightly different genes rapidly increases the chances of new traits which can improve viability. The authors also fail to realize that sperm and egg cells are not required for sexual reproduction.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_whoneedsmales.html

 

Ok, I'll say something about sexual reproduction, but I am not going to go into it to any depth - this is YOUR job!

First, we have to go WAY back. Bacteria share genetic material. By the time of yeast we have sexual reproduction. They have the basics down, being able to move from the diploid state to the haploid state and then fusing to get back to diploid.

From there all sorts of advances can occur. The gametes can beco e associated with other features. If one gamete carries more stuff with it and the other is, say, limited to carrying genetic material, then we call one the egg and the other the sperm. From there we call the egg producer the female. (So,it becomes less surprising that some animals can switch sex or can be both sexes. Also, plants can have both gametes produced on a single plant, or a single plant can be strictly male or female.

But, it started back with bacteria and yeast, more than a billion years ago.

 

Really? Like what for instance?

That still doesn't explain how did it came to be and who did the first sexual only organism mated with.

How about this since I can very easily find a link debunking the paper's rebuttal. I provide a link for my side and you refute it by either your own words or a link.

What if there was scientific evidence for a creator? The logical conclusion is that a creator made it. It'll be like an island tribe coming upon a washed up computer on the beach and they must figure out how it got there but they can't say that someone made it. So somehow they manage to find out that the chips inside was made of the same stuff as the sand so they concluded that the wave action on the sand made it that way.

 

That too. I can learn and still try to get you saved at the same time.

How can I do that when all you give is something that I have to pay to see?

Doesn't that show how even more complexed reproduction is?

- - - Updated - - -

So how do you introduce genetic information that never existed before?

 

If you google "how do you introduce genetic information that never existed before" in google you will find a number of explanatory references from science. You can get better at this with practice, but to start with I would suggest going a little farther and finding sites that belong to and are controlled by university science departments, such as course ware and text books approved by those who care about science. Otherwise, you are going to hit pretenders, such as you find on your YEC sites, where science is grossly misrepresented in order to facilitate the argument that science is ridiculous.

If you have a college in your city they will undoubtedly have a book store where they sell the text books for biology courses. A glance at course titles and perusal of the entry level text books should help select works that will answer your questions without requiring a lot of biological science background - no discredit to you, it just makes it easier.

If you are honestly just interested in religion, you can look at sites that teach you the version of religion you like.

 

No, because sexual reproduction (meiosis) is only slightly more complex than how cells divide (mitosis) to begin with, producing four genetically unique cells with half the original chromosomes (haploid) instead of two identical cells with the original number of chromosomes (diploid). Two of these four cells can then recombine to form a new organism with the original number of chromosomes (diploid). When sexual reproduction first evolved, there was no difference between the two haploid cells. It is only much later that sex as we know it evolved, with male and female gametes becoming distinct from each other.

 

I would even suggest starting with Wikipedia. It may not be a good primary source, but it does give a descent overview of the subject along with references to the relevant scientific sources.

 

Very good point.

I've looked at "rationalwiki" very little - maybe that's an reasonable overview source, too. Or, maybe they're a little too oriented at finding fault with religion rather than simply presenting science. Again, I don't know the site well.

 

Neither TRUTH nor IDEALS has anything to do with REALITY.

They are both CONCEPTS that only exist in the MINDS of Human Beings....and any other Space-Faring Race....and perhaps those less advanced who are out there.

AA

 

WOW!!!

You STILL don't get what I was going on about???

I was....STUNNED.

Why was I stunned??

Because you posted....THIS...."Quick question. Who did the first sexual organism marry?"..end quote Maccabbe.

Now unfortunately YOU do not understand WHY I find your above question not only HYSTERICAL, SAD, INCREDULOUS and just...WOW!! And I mean....WOOOOW!!!!

Since you don't get it I will have to explain why this question that you not only asked me ONCE in this lifetime but TWICE NOW.....which is so incredibly unlikely that it makes the odd's specific to a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY seem like trying to guess a number 1-3!!!

OK....take a moment to run a search and this is the DEFINITION OF THE WORD ORGANISM....

or·gan·ism
ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/
noun
an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.
synonyms: living thing, being, creature, animal, plant, life form
"fish and other organisms"
the material structure of an individual life form.
"the heart's contribution to the maintenance of the human organism"
a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being.
"the upper strata of the American social organism"
synonyms: structure, system, organization, entity
"a complex political organism"

OK.....NOW.....attempt to run a search on the words as you posted them.....SEXUAL ORGANISM.

Tell me what you get.

If any member run's these two words on a search....YOUR ACTUAL COMPUTER AND GOOGLE OR WHATEVER INTERNET PROVIDER YOU HAVE WILL THINK YOU HAVE SIMPLY MADE A SPELLING ERROR AND WHEN I RUN A SEARCH USING GOOGLE THIS IS THE FIRST THING THAT COMES UP.....

9 Orgasm Positions - Best Sex Positions for Having an Orgasm

Followed by.....

Facts about the Female Orgasm & Pleasure - Everyday Health.

You see our Computers and our INTERNET PROVIDERS are deducting that we cannot possibly be so stupid as to run a search on the two words put together as SEXUAL ORGANISM.....so they think that we simply can't be that dumb and they change what they think is a typo or spelling issue or mis-thought into SEXUAL ORGASM.

Soooo.....then if a member places the word ORGANISM before SEXUAL we get...

Sexual vs. Asexual Reproduction

Living things use lots of different strategies for producing offspring, but most strategies fall neatly into the categories of either sexual or asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction generates offspring that are genetically identical to a single parent. In sexual reproduction, two parents contribute genetic information to produce unique offspring.

Sexual and asexual reproduction have advantages and disadvantages—which is why some organisms do both!

Hey!! ALRIGHT!! WE GET SOMETHING!!! THE COMPUTER AND INTERNET SERVER THINKING THAT IT HAS A MORON TYPING IN A TWO WORD...term....THAT DOES NOT EXIST.....LOL!!!.....ACTUALLY GOES AND SENDS THE MORON TO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL PRODUCTION ACTUALLY IS!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

I have NOT laughed this hard in a while!!!

I kid you not I laughed so hard that I swallowed a bit of spit and nearly chocked to death as I kept laughing and choking at the same time!!! LOL!!!

I found it ENDLESSLY HYSTERICAL that my COMPUTER and my INTERNET SERVER.....basically when once being confronted by me running a search upon something that did not exist and a MACHINE, COMPUTER AND A SYSTEM BASICALLY CORRECTED ME...thinking I could NOT POSSIBLY be this stupid.......then.....

.....THEN.....when I typed the words in reverse by running a search upon ORGANISM SEXUAL.....LOL!!....I am having a HARD TIME even typing this as I am breaking out laughing!! LOL!!.....when I typed it in ORGANISM SEXUAL.....my Computer and Internet Provider basically....SLAPPED ME IN THE HEAD EFFECTIVELY SAYING......."HEY YOU DUMB ASS!!! HERE IS WHY NOTHING IS COMING UP AND HERE IS THE DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE BETWEEN SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION AND.....WHY!!!...... YOU TWO QUARTS SHORT OF A GALLON DUMB ASS.....WHY....THE TWO WORDS SEXUAL AND ORGANISM ARE NOT USED TOGETHER AS THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WHEN PUT TOGETHER DO NOT FORM A TERM!!!!

LOL!!!!

I mean....it was bad enough when I was ripping you a new one over this....BUT....when I played the part of YOU....and when I did what YOU do.....EVEN THE DAMN COMPUTERS AND INTERNET WERE BASICALLY LAUGHING AT ME!!! LOL!!!

OHHHH...MAN!!!


I'm sorry.....but this is the first time the Internet and the Computer have ever called me an IDIOT!! LOL!!!
But EXACTLY what is it we get?



HUMAN BEINGS REPRODUCE BY BOTH SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL MEANS!!!

And here is the KICKER for you.....Humanity no longer needs both men and women to reproduce anymore!!!

All we need is a CELL SAMPLE be it a few cells from a man or woman.....it DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE CELLS COME FROM EITHER A MAN OR WOMAN....and it DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CELLS ARE FROM THE SKIN ON THE HAND OR SAY THE HARVESTED CELLS FROM THE PENIS OF A MAN OR THE HARVESTED CELLS FROM THE INNER THIGH OF A FEMALE OR ANY KIND OF CELLS AS LONG AS THEY ARE LIVING!!!

Geneticists are capable of taking a few cells from JUST ONE PERSON...man or woman matters not and neither does age as the cells could be from an old man or old woman or they could be from a baby.....or they could be the cells that a person usually loses when dedicating as we could take a stool sample from someone at a Town Fair who had to use the PORTO-POTTY and take that persons stool sample and Geneticists would HARVEST ALL THE CELLS THEY NEEDED from that Human Waste and no matter what kind of cells they were and in the Human Waste Sample those cells would be living human cells that came from that persons INTESTINAL TRACK and COLON or perhaps some were from that persons ANUS.....

......and then Geneticists would take those living cells and activate them to during Mitosis reproduce as STEM CELLS....and as Stem Cells can be changed into ANY TYPE OF HUMAN CELL.....a few cells from say a GAY MAN'S STOOL SAMPLE......can then be harvested....turned into STEM CELLS.....then Geneticists can change the Stem Cells into ANY HUMAN CELLS THEY WANT.....so they would then turn the Gay Males Cells into SPERM AND EGG CELLS......then they would.......

......Geneticists would simply FERTILIZE THE EGG CELLS THEY CREATED WITH THE SPERM CELLS THEY ALSO CREATED from the STEM CELLS that were induced to be grown from the living cells harvested from a stool sample which carried the healthy living Large and Small Intestinal Cells as well as healthy Colon and Anus cells.

Then the Geneticists would select a few VIABLE AND HEALTHY FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG CELLS....all created from the healthy living cells harvested from a Gay Man's stool sample.....and just like a FERTILITY CLINIC DOCTOR.....select the Fertilized Egg Cells that look the best and either Implant then into the Uterine Wall of a Willing Woman....and throw out the rest of the unneeded healthy fertilized egg cells into the trash just like at a Fertility Clinic.....or.....

......OR.......Geneticists could implant a few of these very healthy Fertilized Human Egg Cells into a.....LIVING GENETICALLY CLONED OR ENGINEERED UTERINE WALL existing in an ARTIFICIAL WOMB...and these do exist.....and then grow a FETUS.....all the time watching for any Genetic Markers that would indicate any disease or genetic abnormality which most likely could be FIXED unlike the way a person is born now as very few developing fetuses get the Genetic Treatment necessary to change the fetal development from including Genetic Diseases and Abnormalities like Cancer, M.S., AID's, Lou Gerigs Disease...etc.....

......and then after time "BIRTH"....a CHILD.....who has been carefully watched as the fetus developed and had every possible disease and genetic abnormality from Bad Vision to a Genetic Propensity to Alcoholism to the removal the the DNA that would cause that birthed CHILD from getting Bone Marrow Cancer later on in life!!



ANYWAY......I hope you understand NOW!

An ORGANISM....that could become MARRIED....well as I was attempting to explain....SEXUALITY is a word that is so EXCLUSIVE unto itself that even when running a Computer Search the SEARCH could not even place the two words together in the manner YOU were doing as the Computer and Search Engine actually believed YOU WERE MAKING A MISTAKE!!!

And when you used the word....WHO...in your sentence...."Quick question. Who did the first sexual organism marry?"....end quote Maccabbe....the word WHO in that sentence is not only HILARIOUS....it is also not applicable to the sentence.

Your use of the word...."WHO"...in that sentence shows all you are ASSIGNING SENTIENCE and in your case assigning HUMAN SENTIENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS to the rest of the words...." did the first sexual organism marry?".

As well your use of the word...."MARRY"....is assigning the ability and social and human emotional and cultural practices upon the word ORGANISM.

And this is just ONE LEVEL that exists upon MULTIPLE LEVELS of things that are just WRONG about your statement.

What we get is a few facts detailing how an ORGANISM....which was the first word you put together....can REPRODUCE either Sexually or Asexually or BOTH.

Human Being Reproduction utilizes BOTH SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION!!

Marriage has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with Human Reproduction and at this point NEITHER DOES A PERSONS SEXUALITY PRECLUDE THEM FROM REPRODUCING!!!

A person...either male, female or both as in a Hermaphrodite...only needs MONEY....either a woman willing to carry the fetus to term or if the person can carry the fetus they just need implantation....but if they are a MAN...or cannot carry a fetus to term....they can use the ARTIFICIAL WOMB.

They don't need a DONOR....as all that is needed to get multiple Fertilized Human Egg Cells is a LIVING CELL SAMPLE FROM THE PERSON!!!

They can be a man, woman or both...it does not matter.

ANYWAYS.......the REASON I went and detailed all this out was NOT to torture you.

I admit I did get a GOOD LAUGH but my purpose was to TEACH YOU....specifically....THIS..........You have this hangup over LINEAR TIME.

EVERYTHING for you must be broken down into Beginning, Middle and End and you cannot seem to GRASP the REALITY that there is so much more going on that if you could just be taught to understand just a tiny bit of it....and learning what IT is....DOES NOT REQUIRE BLIND FAITH.....just a logical and rational mind with the ability to comprehend that we have VERIFIABLE, DEFINITIVE AND MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN ONE TIME THEORIES NOW FACTS due to the use of a Mathematical Proof......that show us a GLIMPSE into a system that is so massive and complex that a Human Being is not mentally capable of envisioning such a thing as we can only....GLIMPSE as it will take many more thousands of years of evolution before the Human Mind evolves to any point CLOSE to being able to VISUALIZE what we can only detail with MATH.

Now your question....and OF COURSE I KNEW what you were driving at....you were looking at this and thinking...."OK....he cannot bend logic around the fact that Human Beings were the first of GODS CREATURES to be able to sexually reproduce and MARRY and be joined with permission of GOD HIMSELF.....or something like that I am sure you were thinking.

But unfortunately you do not....SEE....that your argument does not apply and your words are once again MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and do not interfere nor are they exclusive to any group or type of people.

Marriage or Pair Bonding existed long before the Church or any Religion tried to SINK IT'S CLAWS into such Bonding as the Church and Religion saw MARRIAGE as a WAY TO MAKE MONEY OR GET GOODS!!

One moment you are 150,000 Years ago being given a 12th wife because you are a 6 foot 2 inch man with well above average strength, intelligence and lifespan who has Blue/Green Eye's and the Chief of the Tribe has already give you all his daughters as he LOVES TO SEE all his BEAUTIFUL GRAND KIDS who like the Chiefs daughters and he Husband...ie...me....are good looking, strong and have what the CHIEF so desperately wanted from you....your DNA so that the children of the Tribe would not be short and weak but tall, strong and intelligent and without disease and deformity.

So because the Chief set you up with his first couple of daughters and the results were beautiful, extremely strong and smart children all with LEADERSHIP SKILLS.......the next thing you know the Chief not having any son's....IS GROOMING YOU TO BE HIS REPLACEMENT with his daughters all 7 of them....and their children by your side.

But the Chief was smart not to let it end there as he gave you more wives.....the daughter of the Medicine Man....the daughter of the Stone Cutter....the daughter of Arrow Smith...etc.

The Chief was even smart enough to work out a deal with his ENEMIES and promise them that you....ie...me....would allow into my bed the daughter of the ENEMY....as a resolution to a multiple generation conflict HAS BEEN FOUND AND IN RETURN FOR PEACE.....the enemies daughters womb get's my sperm.

My point is.....there is so much going on in just our Finite Universe never mind the Infinite Multiverse that why do you allow yourself to have so limited a scope?

BELIEF AND RELIGION do not conflict with SCIENCE.

However you need to have an OPEN MIND.

I have a very open mind as far as Religion goes but so far....and I have done all the reading.....nothing in religion has any veracity to it.

AA

 

What is time? A representation of a reality based on the existence of a creature that can recognize its existence. Now, this may not be the actual definition... Though it should be. Reality is based on each persons existence, so time is relative to each person. This is not so in the animal kingdom. They do not recognize time, they just live and die. So millions of years can pass by in the blink of an eye.

You can prove existence but existance could not prove time until humans came about.

 

You cannot even prove the existence of time now. Time is nothing more than a measure of the change we observe around us. If you don't believe me, try to define a unit of time without reference to anything changing.

 

When I discuss theory, it's unique to my own thoughts, that might be why your having trouble grasping what I'm saying. Let me try and be more clear. I highly doubt the evolutionary process we see in the animal kingdom is what happened so humans could exist. No, something abnormal happened, call it what you will but don't call it evolution. Evolution existed as a process for millions of years on earth without a creature that understood its existance. So existance for humans is the beginning of a reality completely different from any other creature. Time can only exist within a reality, with recognition, of its existence. Without time being a presences with respect to a life forms thought process, it doesn't exist. So, an instant universe is possible, and a YEC is possible.

There are many things that a structured scientific process can not explain. So, we must think outside the box and develope solutions that at the moment seem impossible. Question for ya: Is your existance not a representation of mental process that recognizes time?

 

Here is an example of time. You and a friend can do this. One of you stare at a clock and the other watch TV. After 30 min, each of you should have a different reality of time. This is my point, our existance is the starting point of the existance of time.

 

Time can't be defined in a way that everyone can agree if everyone's perception of time is different . Because no one is ever in the same place and subjected to either the same "speed" or gravitational forces, they will never observe a happening ocurring at the same time. That means that different places in time exist simultaneously. That means all time exists at once and it is we who are moving through time/space and not time at all.

 

I have stated on previous posts that time is dependent on the reality of each person. I don't believe time exists independent of human existance. Time is fluid, it is likely not a force governing all things, thus, it is entirely subject to human thought. My point in this thread is human thought is abnormal to evolution and time (being a construct of human thought) never existed before our existance.