| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 12:40:17 PM |
| Object: |
Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother's immune system, contrary
to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby-half
of whom is a 'foreign body' from the father. If these immune systems
functioned 'properly,' mammals-including each of us-would not exist.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations
of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet
emerged." [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London:
Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, "Boring Sperm," Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p.
704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, "Electrical Responses of
Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm," Science,
Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654-1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode
are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in
mammals." Jean Marx, "Tracing How the Sexes Develop," Science, Vol.
269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. "This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of
sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with
current evolutionary theory." George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the
question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians
(notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.
However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be
solved without abandoning the main
Darwinian insights-just as early nineteenth-century astronomers
believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome
without major modification of Newton's celestial mechanics." Philip
Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
"The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of
biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often
freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is
maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists." Michael Rose,
"Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup," New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30
October 1986, p. 55.
"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in
evolutionary biology today." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why
Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
"Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists.
Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded
secret." Kathleen McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex," Omni, December 1983,
p. 18.
"From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible
to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between
the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that
intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a
species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges
between two amazingly different structural types?" Nilsson, p. 1225.
"One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that
no one knows why sex persists." [According to evolution, it should
not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, "Why Is Sex?" Science News, Vol. 126, 8
September 1984, p. 155.
g. "In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and
mechanist concur except on just one point-a work of art, a machine or
a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself." Pitman,
p. 135.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:23:13 PM |
|
|
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181929217.525137.203010@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, >
wrong - they are not radically different
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 01:54:48 PM |
|
|
Complexity does not disprove evolution. It in fact supports it.
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181929217.525137.203010@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother's immune system, contrary
to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby-half
of whom is a 'foreign body' from the father. If these immune systems
functioned 'properly,' mammals-including each of us-would not exist.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations
of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet
emerged." [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London:
Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, "Boring Sperm," Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p.
704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, "Electrical Responses of
Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm," Science,
Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654-1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode
are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in
mammals." Jean Marx, "Tracing How the Sexes Develop," Science, Vol.
269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. "This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of
sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with
current evolutionary theory." George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the
question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians
(notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.
However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be
solved without abandoning the main
Darwinian insights-just as early nineteenth-century astronomers
believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome
without major modification of Newton's celestial mechanics." Philip
Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
"The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of
biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often
freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is
maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists." Michael Rose,
"Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup," New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30
October 1986, p. 55.
"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in
evolutionary biology today." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why
Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
"Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists.
Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded
secret." Kathleen McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex," Omni, December 1983,
p. 18.
"From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible
to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between
the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that
intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a
species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges
between two amazingly different structural types?" Nilsson, p. 1225.
"One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that
no one knows why sex persists." [According to evolution, it should
not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, "Why Is Sex?" Science News, Vol. 126, 8
September 1984, p. 155.
g. "In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and
mechanist concur except on just one point-a work of art, a machine or
a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself." Pitman,
p. 135.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
28 Jun 2007 06:44:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:40:17 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
That's nice little one. Go back to your cartoons and stop pestering the
adults.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 01:43:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:40:17 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
The unfortunate fact that you've never had sex doesn't disprove
evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
30 Jun 2007 10:55:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:43:10 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote
in alt.atheism
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:40:17 -0700, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
The unfortunate fact that you've never had sex doesn't disprove
evolution.
You mean fortunate fact. Such stupidity should not reproduce.
--
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is
unable to believe things for which there is
no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of
a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:12:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:40:17 -0700, Pahu wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
For you to post something that has a shred of intelligence would require
an unbelievable series of unlikely events...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 05:55:47 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 10:40 am, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
Let's assume this is correct. Let's assume the probability that this
could happen is X. Now, imagine we program a computer to generate a
random number between one and X. Some number comes up, call it Y.
Now, we look at Y. We say -- if the choice of Y was the result of
purely random processes, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred. In fact, the odds that it happened by chance is a mere
one in X, and X is huge.
Yet Y was chosen. Why was that? Because *something* has to happen.
Consider a rain storm. Each individual drop of rain could have fallen
along trillions of paths. If you multiply that by the number of
droplets, the odds of the ground getting moistened precisely the way
it did is astronomical -- beyond astronomical.
But something has to happen. And whenever you have a complex scenario
with millions of parts and millions of individual events, whatever
outcome actually happens will be a staggeringly improbable one, and
the odds of that outcome -- if computed prior to the outcome being
known -- would be staggering.
You are asking the wrong question. The question is, what are the odds
that either what happened would have happened or something else
equally unlikely would have happened? And the answer to that question
is -- it's nearly certain. Add up all the incredibly unlikely events,
the huge number of them, and the total odds will be certainty.
There are no probable outcomes. Every outcome is tremendously
improbable.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "aversiveness" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
27 Jun 2007 05:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 1:40 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
Your whole thesis breaks right here. You do not need split
complementary reproductive systems on two divergent beings. You just
need them on one. Go study how a plant reproduces and then get back
to us. Start with simple flowers like tulips that have both sex
organs -- in otherwords two organs that each emit a portion of the
genetic information in a form compatible with the form emitted by the
other. The tulip can use this to reproduce by itself, or by
exchanging genetic information with other tulips. So right there you
can see the bridge between the asexual and sexual worlds. From that
point, exchanging genetic information proves advantageous because it
results in greater diversity in each generation so logically it would
tend to be favored and encouraged by selection.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 12:50:02 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 1:40 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
http://www.viren.ca/images/creationist.gif
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:50:02 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:40 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
http://www.viren.ca/images/creationist.gif
The Pahu, OTOH, is made of wood. No intelligence, just a piece of
dead tree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:12:58 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with
this:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
Take your personal incredulity to the Christian groups. They will be wide-
eyed with wonder.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:47:57 PM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1181929217.525137.203010
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
The cord was wrapped around your neck, wasn't it. Too bad.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never
inconvenienced me a bit.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 03:30:39 PM |
|
|
Enkidu <fox_rgfszx@trashmail.net> wrote in
news:Xns995082C26E08C255229@130.133.1.4:
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1181929217.525137.203010
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of
chance events must have occurred at each stage.
The cord was wrapped around your neck, wasn't it.
Past tense? Still is, I think.
Too bad.
At least he's not competing with normal people for good paying jobs.
--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:06:47 PM |
|
|
Pahu wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother's immune system, contrary
to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby-half
of whom is a 'foreign body' from the father. If these immune systems
functioned 'properly,' mammals-including each of us-would not exist.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations
of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet
emerged." [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London:
Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, "Boring Sperm," Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p.
704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, "Electrical Responses of
Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm," Science,
Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654-1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode
are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in
mammals." Jean Marx, "Tracing How the Sexes Develop," Science, Vol.
269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. "This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of
sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with
current evolutionary theory." George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the
question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians
(notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.
However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be
solved without abandoning the main
Darwinian insights-just as early nineteenth-century astronomers
believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome
without major modification of Newton's celestial mechanics." Philip
Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
"The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of
biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often
freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is
maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists." Michael Rose,
"Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup," New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30
October 1986, p. 55.
"Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in
evolutionary biology today." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, "Why
Sex?" Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
"Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists.
Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded
secret." Kathleen McAuliffe, "Why We Have Sex," Omni, December 1983,
p. 18.
"From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible
to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between
the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that
intersexes [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a
species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges
between two amazingly different structural types?" Nilsson, p. 1225.
"One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that
no one knows why sex persists." [According to evolution, it should
not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, "Why Is Sex?" Science News, Vol. 126, 8
September 1984, p. 155.
g. "In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and
mechanist concur except on just one point-a work of art, a machine or
a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself." Pitman,
p. 135.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#wp1861111
Please, don't make the same mistake those authors did. Take that Bio 101
course.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:56:56 PM |
|
|
Sexual reproduction proves the designer was to stupid to create
grownup people with knowledge already in their minds, and for some
reason needed them to have more than one parent. And of course he was
also to stupid to make them want to make babies, so he made them want
to have sex.
So sexual reproduction also disproves ID and prove SD instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
15 Jun 2007 03:41:50 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun, 20:56, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Sexual reproduction proves the designer was to stupid to create
grownup people with knowledge already in their minds, and for some
reason needed them to have more than one parent. And of course he was
also to stupid to make them want to make babies, so he made them want
to have sex.
So sexual reproduction also disproves ID and prove SD instead.
Also Narcissus who was both male and female, could fertilise itself.
There are many carbon based life forms that replicated without sex.
The truth is evolution, is like an ever expanding equation, we as
Animals have evolved to notice things in the simplest form .ie. a
Tiger attacking us. It has paid to be able to judge its distance
acceleration etc, for us to survive, Certain thing and events in our
evolutionary history have enabled us to surpass this basic mental
ability. But modern science has only been going for hundred years or
so, or if u take the Chinese a few 1000nd years. Humans have existed
for millions of years, life Billions, surely u don't expect all us
poor atheists to have all the answers, after such a short time, the
bible aint a good start for the truth that's for sure
Fudge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 08:30:14 AM |
|
|
On 15 jun, 22:41, wrote:
On 15 Jun, 20:56, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Sexual reproduction proves the designer was to stupid to create
grownup people with knowledge already in their minds, and for some
reason needed them to have more than one parent. And of course he was
also to stupid to make them want to make babies, so he made them want
to have sex.
So sexual reproduction also disproves ID and prove SD instead.
Also Narcissus who was both male and female, could fertilise itself.
There are many carbon based life forms that replicated without sex.
The truth is evolution, is like an ever expanding equation, we as
Animals have evolved to notice things in the simplest form .ie. a
Tiger attacking us. It has paid to be able to judge its distance
acceleration etc, for us to survive, Certain thing and events in our
evolutionary history have enabled us to surpass this basic mental
ability. But modern science has only been going for hundred years or
so, or if u take the Chinese a few 1000nd years. Humans have existed
for millions of years, life Billions, surely u don't expect all us
poor atheists to have all the answers, after such a short time, the
bible aint a good start for the truth that's for sure
Fudge
Actually I do think f you spot a tiger attacking you are probably to
late.
Which brings me to another trait of SD
This creator was stupid enough to make several of his creations more
strong than the summit of it's creation, and made only two of those,
knowing perfectly well, that one man and one woman without sufficient
civilization to back them up, are no match for a tiger. Boy was he
lucky to get his creation going!
All odds would be on the tiger surviving in stead of the humans,
but there you go again: Something unlikely happens, and the two
succeed in enough incest to get civilization started, before the
tigers realized humans were easier to get than piggies. By the time
Nimrod was around, the tiger was of course doomed.
Now I suddenly realize why Noach had to have seven pairs of
domsticated lifestock, as opposed to only one pair of wildlife.
He needed something to keep the tigers happy before they starded to
gnaw on Noach's family!
I wondered how he fed the spiders and wasps, with only two flies and
to caterpillars to please them, Guess there was a lot of extiction
going on in that boat!:)
Does anybody know how long carnivorous insects and spiders can do
without food??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 09:00:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:41:50 -0700, wrote:
On 15 Jun, 20:56, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
Sexual reproduction proves the designer was to stupid to create
grownup people with knowledge already in their minds, and for some
reason needed them to have more than one parent. And of course he was
also to stupid to make them want to make babies, so he made them want
to have sex.
So sexual reproduction also disproves ID and prove SD instead.
Also Narcissus who was both male and female, could fertilise itself.
No, that was Hermaphroditus.
Narcisus kept admiring his reflection and was turned into a flower.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
16 Jun 2007 12:04:17 AM |
|
|
That _your_ parents were able to reproduce (if they are just half as dumb as
you) might be considered a serious problem for evolution indeed.
But then, who knows - maybe it took all place within a Petri dish.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Another Anti-Evolution Whiner Can't Support His Claim |
16 Jun 2007 05:45:25 AM |
|
|
Why are you posting claims about biology to an atheist news group?
On Jun 15, 12:40 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
At what stages? What are these specific stages you refer to? Can you
ennumerate them for us?
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
The systems are essentially the same when they begin, with the same
"components". They're actually not as different as you're pretending.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).
Is your claim that sexual reproduction was there at the start just as
we see it today? That's not what the Theory of Evolution shows. On
the contrary, that's what creationists claim. Please do not get the
science confused with the fiction.
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.
You mean just like the body's cells have an affinity for one another?
Well...it's already there! LoL!
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
You mean like the functions inside any cell work together?
Well...it's already there! LoL!
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.
Where is the accident? Where does the Theory of evolution claim that
all these things happened by "accident"?
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.
Where is the accident? Where does the Theory of evolution claim that
all these things happened by "accident"?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.
Where is the "random" Where does the Theory of evolution claim that
all these things happened completely randomly? Was there someone
there shaking dice, or were these things not completely random, but
physical, chemical, and bioligcal processes?
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Why?
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction (f).
Do you have a reference for that?
But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction,
Sexual reproduction involves mitosis, asexual reproduction involves
mitosis. So?
how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
How did diversity and distribution of organisms arise? The evidence
hsows it was by evolution. Do you have scientific evidence to
disprove this? Do you have scientific evidence for an alternative
system which better epxlains what we see?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle.
Why?
But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
Why? Can you not see the fundamental flaw in your claim here?
[Rest snipped until you provide some answers]
You have made a lot of claims but have not supported even one of them
with hard science. All that your "argument" consists of, is a series
of "no it isn't" statements from personal incredulity.
Do you have an alternative to the Theory of Evolution? If so, then
what positive scientific evidence can you provde that supports your
alternative? I'll be happy to formally debate your evidence right
here if you can present any.
Can you really talk the talk or are you blindly reproducing yourself?
Reproducing LIES from creationist web sites, that is?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Sexual Reproduction Disproves Evolution |
20 Jun 2007 08:45:03 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:40:17 -0700, Pahu wrote:
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of
evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must
have occurred at each stage.
Or not.
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Or not. One might note that even unicellular organisms can exchange
genetic information - the very point to sex. The rest is just refinement.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).
Which, as we see from the above, simply isn't an issue.
c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
(b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.
Electrical? What, the sperm zaps the egg into receptiveness? This is
actually nothing but re-asserting the point above, so counting it twice is
a bit silly. Nor do "emotional" issues need enter into it at all, unless
you care to describe the emotional involvement of a sponge.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
Again, just a re-assertion of previous points.
e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.
No, just until delivery, actually. For that matter, many species don't
even go that far; they cast their fates to the wind (or water, more
generally) and whatever happens, happens. What controls?
f. This remarkable string of "accidents" must have been repeated for
millions of species.
Only actually necessary in a hatful of earlier species.
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by
random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by
intelligence.
Well, so far, we have one repeated statement about how complex it all is,
when it isn't, a complete misconception (pardon the pun) of when and
how the process would need to have occurred, and a complete misconception
about the conditions required. Nothing particularly miraculous so far...
are you going to show the problematic bit soon?
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an
embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all
animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Why should it be the same? Lots of cases of different means to the same
ends - different proteins performing similar functions, different
structures to the eye, etc, etc, etc.
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual
reproduction (f).
No, it doesn't. Properly, it doesn't predict _either_; it merely deals in
what happens _after_ a reproductive process - sexual or otherwise -
exists. However, sexual reproduction offers a species a much faster
mixing of traits, making the species much more likely to adapt to changes,
so if anything, evolution would predict that _if sexual reproduction
arose_ it would tend to be the more successful method. It says nothing
about _whether_ this mode will arise, however.
But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism
into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how
did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Probably as a result of the much simpler sharing of genetic information we
see in some unicellular forms. It isn't a big step to go from _using_
genetic sharing to _requiring_ genetic sharing. The rest is just fine
tuning. As to how it survived, it provides a massive survival benefit to
the species, to the population; it is actually very likely to survive.
Finally, to produce the
first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to
produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself
would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
Actually, all that's ultimately required is a comparatively simple
chemical which can, from materials in its environment, cause copies of
itself to form - i.e. something considerably simpler than what we'd regard
as "life".
a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother's immune system, contrary to
its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby-half of
whom is a 'foreign body' from the father. If these immune systems
functioned 'properly,' mammals-including each of us-would not exist.
Fortunately, even the simplest organisms can share genetic information
without such problems, so the notion of "foreign invader" has had a hell
of a long time to be dealt with. More to the point, it came _before_ said
immune systems, which means they, not the sexual reproduction, would be
the things being selected for utility - and if they rejected reproduction,
they'd be selected out of the population pretty damn quick.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations
of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet
emerged."
Strikes me as a total non-issue, frankly. Sex came first, immune system
came later. Any immune system which rejected reproduction wouldn't last.
The mystery might be _how_ it tells sperm or a fertilized egg from a
foreign body, but the mere fact that it does isn't a mystery.
e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode
are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals."
Er... so? Someone said they had to be the same?
"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the
question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians
(notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.
There's no convincing history for creationism, either; doesn't stop people
buying into it. One slight difference: even where there *are* unexplained
things in science, at least science _tries_ to explain 'em.
"The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology.
Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit
that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained.
Yeah, lots of ideas, a few trivial issues, no certain conclusions. Big
whoop.
--
If sheep could cook, women would be irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
