| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2004 11:25:05 PM |
| Object: |
Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 01:20:14 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401242124.71164ed7@posting.google.com...
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
All of the above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 02:24:13 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401242124.71164ed7@posting.google.com>...
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The 1/r-potential (with correction due to gravity) can account extremely well for:
1. a solar system having lots of asteroids;
2. a solar system having very few asteroids;
Regards,
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 08:48:00 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:25:05 +0000 (UTC),
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
<snip>
....why things evolve.
You're putting far too much thought into this. It's not that
difficult if you go with the obvious rather than trying to justify
superstitious beliefs that have already _far_ outlived their
credibility. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origin of
life, only how it changes once it's arisen. Go ahead and wage an
assault on the TOE - kudos to you if you can come up with some valid
flaw in it. Science _THRIVES_ on finding flaws with itself and
changing in response to new data.
Religion, on the other hand, _THRIVES_ on refusing to even *look* at
itself, on refusing to even consider changing. Unlike science,
religion struggles to update the data to reflect _itself_ rather than
the other way around.
Note that this doesn't automatically mean there's nothing to religion
- only that religion, as it most commonly exists, is a force of
stagnation and decay. The antithesis of knowledge, nay the very
_enemy_ of it. Religion - as most commonly practised, and as most
certainly expressed in your case - is a thoroughly defunct mode of
operation, to be sure. An artifact. Something which, ironically
enough especially in your case, is an "evolutionary throwback". A
not-yet-fully-atrophied "left-over" from an earlier stage of our
evolutionary development. In other words, religion is the appendix of
the human mind. And _whoah_, how catastrophic it can be when the
friggin' thing gets inflamed and ends up _bursting_. I'd say GWB &
the current crop of fundy loons in the present administration are
supreme examples of this. Every bit as festering and demented as
Saddam Hussein or Ossama bin Laden _ever_ could hope to be, not one
whit more respectable simply because they're _Christian_ fundies as
opposed to Muslim ones.
Not to worry. You guys will come around eventually. I just hope it
isn't too late. I'm sure that as long as the Christian fundie loons
are the only ones with the _real_ power to destroy the planet, they'll
feel safe enough to not actually _do_ it. In the mean time, back to
the cave and flint knives with you, now. Hurry, hurry! Time's
a-wastin'! Mustn't keep the more "evolved" humans (including many
theists who are _very_ unlike yourself) waiting!
;-*
--
Love forever and ever and always amen,
Bill, The Avender
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 02:33:08 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0401242124.71164ed7@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
Sure, why not?
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
Such as this world before the origin of sexual reproduction?
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
No, what conditions would ever favor such a hypothetical
world? I can't imagine any such.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
Yes, the theory of evolution accounts quite well for the
real biological world. There are lots of imaginable things
it couldn't explain, but don't happen to exist.
And to complete the contrast, the creationist "model" would
account for any and all of the above, as well as explain equally
well why invisible purple unicorns burble plaintively, or why
strawberry milkshake waterfalls always fall upward:
"Itsbecausegoddiditthatway".
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 02:12:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:25:05 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
Yes.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 01:24:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:25:05 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
yes,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 05:29:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:25:05 +0000, david ford wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
Your subject line suggested that you were going to ask a question.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 02:30:09 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The theory of universal gravitation can account extremely well for:
1. An object that falls vertically
2. An object that inscribes a ballistic path
3. An object in a stable orbit
4. An object in a hyperbolic trajectory
5. An object that doesn't move in relation to another body
.....
It's all about the initial and boundary conditions, david. The values
plugged into the parameters of the model.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 01:36:48 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The theory of universal gravitation can account extremely well for:
1. An object that falls vertically
2. An object that inscribes a ballistic path
3. An object in a stable orbit
4. An object in a hyperbolic trajectory
5. An object that doesn't move in relation to another body
....
It's all about the initial and boundary conditions, david. The values
plugged into the parameters of the model.
Funny you should mention gravitation....
Behe, Michael J. 9 March 1998. Response _National
Review_, 53-54. Behe is a creationist. Two paragraphs on
53-54:
McGinnis's reasoning about biology and politics boils
down to a simple syllogism: 1) human beings have
traits A, B, and C; 2) Darwinism explains everything; 3)
therefore, Darwinism explains A, B, and C. If we have
any reason at all to doubt the second premise, however,
his arguments collapse in a heap. And we've got reasons
aplenty. I apologize for getting a bit technical, but that's
necessary to discuss three critical areas of biology where
Darwinist theory has big problems: sex, embryos, and
cells.
First, sex. As was realized more than a century ago,
Darwinism wrongly predicts that sex should be rare or
nonexistent. The reason is simple: For every two
offspring that a sexual species produces, only one (the
female) can produce further offspring. Both offspring,
however, of an asexual species can go on to reproduce.
Thus asexual species should rapidly outbreed sexual
ones. The embarrassing fact that most species are
sexual forces Darwinists into ad hoc explanations, none
of which is very convincing. The prominent
evolutionary biologist George C. Williams calls the
problem a "crisis" and has written that if sex did not
exist "there would be no mystery." Reproduction is at
the heart of Darwinism. Its longstanding failure to
account for sex is like having a theory of gravity that
predicts objects will fall up instead of down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 04:03:55 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0401261136.6b344df5@posting.google.com...
John Wilkins <john.wilkins@bigpond.com> on 25 Jan 2004:
david ford:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The theory of universal gravitation can account extremely well for:
1. An object that falls vertically
2. An object that inscribes a ballistic path
3. An object in a stable orbit
4. An object in a hyperbolic trajectory
5. An object that doesn't move in relation to another body
....
It's all about the initial and boundary conditions, david. The values
plugged into the parameters of the model.
Funny you should mention gravitation....
Behe, Michael J. 9 March 1998. Response _National
Review_, 53-54. Behe is a creationist. Two paragraphs on
53-54:
McGinnis's reasoning about biology and politics boils
down to a simple syllogism: 1) human beings have
traits A, B, and C; 2) Darwinism explains everything; 3)
therefore, Darwinism explains A, B, and C. If we have
any reason at all to doubt the second premise, however,
his arguments collapse in a heap. And we've got reasons
aplenty. I apologize for getting a bit technical, but that's
necessary to discuss three critical areas of biology where
Darwinist theory has big problems: sex, embryos, and
cells.
First, sex. As was realized more than a century ago,
Darwinism wrongly predicts that sex should be rare or
nonexistent. The reason is simple: For every two
offspring that a sexual species produces, only one (the
female) can produce further offspring. Both offspring,
however, of an asexual species can go on to reproduce.
Thus asexual species should rapidly outbreed sexual
ones. The embarrassing fact that most species are
sexual forces Darwinists into ad hoc explanations, none
of which is very convincing. The prominent
evolutionary biologist George C. Williams calls the
problem a "crisis" and has written that if sex did not
exist "there would be no mystery." Reproduction is at
the heart of Darwinism. Its longstanding failure to
account for sex is like having a theory of gravity that
predicts objects will fall up instead of down.
Of course, you are familiar with the accounting for sexual reproduction that
have been presented.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0709_sexorigin.html
http://www.geneinformation.org/tindol-sexual.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/origin_sex_010710.html
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 09:18:56 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Behe, Michael J. 9 March 1998. Response _National
Review_, 53-54. Behe is a creationist. Two paragraphs on
53-54:
McGinnis's reasoning about biology and politics boils
down to a simple syllogism: 1) human beings have
traits A, B, and C; 2) Darwinism explains everything; 3)
therefore, Darwinism explains A, B, and C. If we have
any reason at all to doubt the second premise, however,
his arguments collapse in a heap. And we've got reasons
aplenty. I apologize for getting a bit technical, but that's
necessary to discuss three critical areas of biology where
Darwinist theory has big problems: sex, embryos, and
cells.
First, sex. As was realized more than a century ago,
Darwinism wrongly predicts that sex should be rare or
nonexistent.
(snip)
It is certainly rare in plants and animals. In humans, for instance
there is a sexual reproductive event followed by many years of asexual
reproduction as the sexually derived fertilized egg cell reproduces
asexually into many clonal cell lines, which express different shared
genes to become parts of many cellular structures. The cells in your
left hand are related to the cells in your right hand through many
asexual generations to their common ancestor, a fertilized egg. They
are quite similar, since this is not an evolutionarily significant
number of generations, in most cases, but they are almost certainly
not genetically identical.
The most common unit off life, on this planet, is the cell. Your body
is a colony of clonal cells that work together for the common good (at
least till some of them break the pact and launch out on their own -
what we call cancer). Sexual reproduction is certainly rare for
almost all life on earth.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
24 Jan 2004 11:54:04 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
Fine. Now explain the significance of each of those as it relates to
the TOE.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 09:30:10 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The "scientific theory of intelligent design", on the other hand, cannot
account for ANYTHING, since it doesn't exist.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "howard hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
26 Jan 2004 09:49:48 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
The theory of evolution can account extremely well for:
1. a biological world having widespread sexual reproduction.
2. a biological world lacking widespread sexual reproduction.
3. a biological world lacking widespread asexual reproduction.
4. a biological world having widespread asexual reproduction.
The theory of evolution (common descent) can account very well for the
biological world that exists on this planet, which includes both
widespread sexual reproduction (among eucaryotes) and widespread asexual
reproduction (among procaryotes both eubacterial and archaeal). That
is, the evidence is that most evolution is vertical rather than
horizontal in nature. But common descent is the rule. And there are
horizontal exceptions for particular genes, particularly in the asexual
procaryotic biota.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Y. So" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
24 Jan 2004 11:46:50 PM |
|
|
you can stop flooding and not responding to any of your posts
to the NG any time, now.
--
| ays
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 12:12:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:46:50 +0000 (UTC), "Albert Y. So"
<h2oaso@removehotmail.com> wrote:
you can stop flooding and not responding to any of your posts
to the NG any time, now.
At long last: Albert and I agree on something.
Is it a miracle?
- Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Y. So" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual, asexual reproduction contra T0E? |
25 Jan 2004 12:26:18 AM |
|
|
Severian wrote:
: Albert Y. So wrote:
:
: >you can stop flooding and not responding to any of your posts
: >to the NG any time, now.
:
: At long last: Albert and I agree on something.
:
: Is it a miracle?
:
Bona fide, baby.
--
| ays
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
