Do you believe in Evolution??? (II)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for killtactics
killtactics

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#201 killtactics
Member since 2004 • 5957 Posts

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????jointed

It's just how the mamals on planet Earth work......

thats the worst answer ever...
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#202 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
[QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????killtactics

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Avatar image for deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#203 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts
[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????killtactics

It's just how the mamals on planet Earth work......

thats the worst answer ever...

not really....It's you who fail to see the stupidity in your question.....How did we evolve thumbs? By genetic mutation.........same with sexual organs......but over a much much longer time period

Avatar image for killtactics
killtactics

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#204 killtactics
Member since 2004 • 5957 Posts
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????quiglythegreat

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

right i know they "need" them.. but how did evolution think to give it to them, and how did they know to use them... having a "d..." does not help me, it does help my children... how how did evolution "think" to think ahead?
Avatar image for Memoryitis
Memoryitis

2221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#205 Memoryitis
Member since 2006 • 2221 Posts

See i dont see it as do u believe in Evolution or not, you cant  compare religion to this because religion is different from science and the  sole reason people with religious views dont believe in the aspect of evolution is because it contradicts with everything they believe in. Evolution is all around us, I say people can believe in Evolution and religion, not the theory of Evolution, but evolution itself, that species can adapt, incorporate their surroundings and survive

Avatar image for killtactics
killtactics

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#206 killtactics
Member since 2004 • 5957 Posts
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????jointed

It's just how the mamals on planet Earth work......

thats the worst answer ever...

not really....It's you who fail to see the stupidity in your question.....How did we evolve thumbs? By genetic mutation.........same with sexual organs......but over a much much longer time period

read my other post....
Avatar image for Memoryitis
Memoryitis

2221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#207 Memoryitis
Member since 2006 • 2221 Posts
yea evolution is real, only reason why religious people dont believe is because it contradicts with their religion otherwise we wouldnt have this debate
Avatar image for dainjah1010
dainjah1010

463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#208 dainjah1010
Member since 2005 • 463 Posts

hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????killtactics

 

Lets start with fungi for an example... they don't have distinct sexes. Their opposite mating types are distinguished by + and -, both gametes (cells that pass on the genes) are the same size and both 'parents' contribute the same amount of energy to producing offspring. Now think about what would happen if one mating type began to produce smaller, more numerous gametes and were able to pass them on while actually contributing less energy to offspring production. They would have a slight advantage and be able to pass on more of their genes thus the gene for many small gametes would become more numerous until you end up with one mating type who essentially 'cheated' and produces many small motile gamete (sperm) with little contribution to offspring production and one mating type with large gametes (egg) who ends up producing the offspring. (rearing the offspring is a different story)

Now you essentially have male and female types which leaves the males in a dilemma and they must compete to pass on their small motile genes.

Avatar image for UGAThornhill
UGAThornhill

198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#209 UGAThornhill
Member since 2005 • 198 Posts

I knew about everything you said so there's no need to send me any of the information.  I personally like to reference the blood-clotting cascade when I talk to people about this but there are so many things in the human body that are ridiculously complex it's hard to fathom how it could've evolved through "shifts in allele frequency". 

That, however, wasn't the point.  I really just wanted you to say:

(Quoting you) "Of course, the real problem with the IC argument is that it is an example of a fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. There are many things in science that are currently unexplainable. Some things may never be explained due to them being completely destroyed and erased from history. However, just because something cannot be explained, that does not automatically lend support to the idea of an intelligent designer."

I know about this argument as well.  I just wanted you to say it :) 

You've got to admit it's kind of ironic.  Christians believe in an all powerful God.  They know He's there... they just can't explain it.  The scientific community says "Well, they just don't know enough science and are too stupid to get it.  Stop having faith and start being analytical."

When the scientific community finds something they can't explain but they know it's there, they say "we just don't know and we may never know but just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it's not true".  That sounds like a wikipedia definition of faith if I've ever heard it.  Quite the double-standard we've got brewing here isn't it?!

Final thoughts for this thread because I don't have time for these long, thought-out answers anymore:

I just want to point out that I don't disagree with you on a lot of this stuff.  I know the science.  I know it makes sense.  It was thought out by a lot of very intelligent people who think the way humans think.  I'm a human, therefore I can completley understand the arguments, the experiments, and the theories.

I also, however, believe in God.  I don't try to reconcile the two because a belief or disbelief in the science isn't going to put my salvation at risk.  I also believe that there are things we'll never explain and things that we couldn't even begin to know existed much less try to explain with our finite reasoning and logic.

Is it possible that God created man through a tool we call "evolution"?  Yes.

Is it possible that God created the Earth 6000 years ago with enough evidence laying around the world to keep us guessing about whether or not He existed until He returns?  Yes... though the least likely scenario in my book of possibilities.

Do I think scientists will ever find a silver bullet that puts the "God theory" to rest?  No.

Avatar image for bastards12345
bastards12345

7194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#210 bastards12345
Member since 2005 • 7194 Posts
[QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="UGAThornhill"]

That sounds well and good but God doesn't have to be confined any physical laws.

UGAThornhill

prove it.

Actually any being, even a god would have to.

Stop trying to confine God to the laws of physics that we all know. He is not a flesh and blood (or carbon-based would be more accurate) being. If He was, the whole omnipresent, omniscient thing would be ridiculous.

If we take Genesis' initial premise as true (God created man in his own image; not the physical image but the spiritual image) and we have yet to identify said "soul", it stands to reason that it's not physical at all.

It already is ridiculous. 

Avatar image for bastards12345
bastards12345

7194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#211 bastards12345
Member since 2005 • 7194 Posts

[QUOTE="bastards12345"]God is not, and cannot be all-powerful. That would defy the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter, as well as all the other scientific laws that we have established, tested, and improved over the ages.syorks

Improved. what is that supposed to mean are u saying that we improved the law of gravity and other stuff so now there better than they ever were before. Cuz thats impossible. Laws of nature can't be changed that why there laws.

I mean the concept gets improved over time. At first we had Newton's definition of the law of gravity, and then it was expanded upon by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. 

Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#212 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????quiglythegreat

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

What about asexual reproduction. u don't need sex organs for that.

Avatar image for ProudLarry
ProudLarry

13511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#213 ProudLarry
Member since 2004 • 13511 Posts
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????syorks

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

What about asexual reproduction. u don't need sex organs for that.

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety. When an asexual organism reproduces, its creating what is essentially a copy of itself. There are some differences that can arise through normal gene mutation, and environmental influence, but that doesn't happen often and isn't very beneficial too often.

Sexual reproduction on the other hand mixes up the genes of two genetically distinct organisms and produces another genetically distinct organism, and that gives rise to a great deal of genetic diversity within a species (relatively speaking). This is a huge advantage in nature because it allows species to better adapt to changes in the environment.

Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#214 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????ProudLarry

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

What about asexual reproduction. u don't need sex organs for that.

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety. When an asexual organism reproduces, its creating what is essentially a copy of itself. There are some differences that can arise through normal gene mutation, and environmental influence, but that doesn't happen often and isn't very beneficial too often.

Sexual reproduction on the other hand mixes up the genes of two genetically distinct organisms and produces another genetically distinct organism, and that gives rise to a great deal of genetic diversity within a species (relatively speaking). This is a huge advantage in nature because it allows species to better adapt to changes in the environment.

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
right i know they "need" them.. but how did evolution think to give it to them, and how did they know to use them... having a "d..." does not help me, it does help my children... how how did evolution "think" to think ahead? killtactics
...do you understand evolution at all? 'Evolution' is not some supreme being planning out life's flight path. Evolution happens based on Darwin's four basic principles and all that jazz. It's really straightforward. They got sex organs because they had to keep living.
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#216 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety.

ProudLarry
Precisely. Sexual reproduction allows for greater variety within a species, far greater, and by increasing variety you increase adaptibility.
Avatar image for KrayzieJ
KrayzieJ

3283

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#217 KrayzieJ
Member since 2003 • 3283 Posts
evolution is not really something you "believe" in, it is the type of thing that correlates to the facts, like the sun being the center of the solar system, the earth not being flat, and the millions of years of development of earth. The perfect religion should have nothing to do with the physical world.
Avatar image for Int7nse
Int7nse

1276

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#218 Int7nse
Member since 2006 • 1276 Posts
 I don't care.
Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#219 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="ProudLarry"]

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety.

quiglythegreat

Precisely. Sexual reproduction allows for greater variety within a species, far greater, and by increasing variety you increase adaptibility.

Exactly, so how did those original cells who make genetically identical copies of itself get sex organs or evolve far enough to evolve sex organs. It doesn't make any since for a thing that produces only identical copies of itself produce new and advanced species unless it was some freak beneficial mutation which is very,very unlikely cuz it would have had to happen hundreds if not thousands of times to finally produce something with sex organs which would then speed up evolution.

Avatar image for ProudLarry
ProudLarry

13511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#220 ProudLarry
Member since 2004 • 13511 Posts
[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="killtactics"]hey i got a quick question... How on earth did we evolve sexual organs and know how to use them... And how on earth did evolution think to give us sexul organs?????????syorks

Do you mean humans specifically, or do you mean how did sexual reproduction in general evolve from asexual reproduction?

i mean the first "thing" to have them...and i wanna know both

Well, animals didn't exist for a while, but obviously they couldn't've ever existed at all without sexual organs for reproduction. This is the number one requirement of life: to be able to reproduce. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

What about asexual reproduction. u don't need sex organs for that.

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety. When an asexual organism reproduces, its creating what is essentially a copy of itself. There are some differences that can arise through normal gene mutation, and environmental influence, but that doesn't happen often and isn't very beneficial too often.

Sexual reproduction on the other hand mixes up the genes of two genetically distinct organisms and produces another genetically distinct organism, and that gives rise to a great deal of genetic diversity within a species (relatively speaking). This is a huge advantage in nature because it allows species to better adapt to changes in the environment.

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

Don't ignore the part where I said there can be variety through natural gene-mutation in asexual organisms. The first life on earth was asexual and was around for possibly as long as 2 billion years before sexual organisms started to become common. So there is plenty of time there organisms to diversify even through asexual reproduction.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#221 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="ProudLarry"]

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety.

syorks

Precisely. Sexual reproduction allows for greater variety within a species, far greater, and by increasing variety you increase adaptibility.

Exactly, so how did those original cells who make genetically identical copies of itself get sex organs or evolve far enough to evolve sex organs. It doesn't make any since for a thing that produces only identical copies of itself produce new and advanced species unless it was some freak beneficial mutation which is very,very unlikely cuz it would have had to happen hundreds if not thousands of times to finally produce something with sex organs which would then speed up evolution.

I don't disagree with anything you actually said.
Avatar image for Denjin_hadouken
Denjin_hadouken

5927

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#222 Denjin_hadouken
Member since 2007 • 5927 Posts
Yes
Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#223 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="ProudLarry"]

No, but asexual reproduction has a huge downside: you get almost no genetic variety.

quiglythegreat

Precisely. Sexual reproduction allows for greater variety within a species, far greater, and by increasing variety you increase adaptibility.

Exactly, so how did those original cells who make genetically identical copies of itself get sex organs or evolve far enough to evolve sex organs. It doesn't make any since for a thing that produces only identical copies of itself produce new and advanced species unless it was some freak beneficial mutation which is very,very unlikely cuz it would have had to happen hundreds if not thousands of times to finally produce something with sex organs which would then speed up evolution.

I don't disagree with anything you actually said.

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

Avatar image for luke1889
luke1889

14617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#224 luke1889
Member since 2004 • 14617 Posts
Stop trying to confine God to the laws of physics that we all know. He is not a flesh and blood (or carbon-based would be more accurate) being. If He was, the whole omnipresent, omniscient thing would be ridiculous.

If we take Genesis' initial premise as true (God created man in his own image; not the physical image but the spiritual image) and we have yet to identify said "soul", it stands to reason that it's not physical at all.

UGAThornhill

Just glancing over the first part of Genesis, I can't see anywhere where it explicitly mentions creating man in God's spiritual image rather than His physical image...

Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you're making things up.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#225 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

syorks
No. It just takes a really goddamn long time.
Avatar image for CmdrMCLinkses
CmdrMCLinkses

778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#226 CmdrMCLinkses
Member since 2007 • 778 Posts
[QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionHiddai
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob  up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#227 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
[QUOTE="Hiddai"][QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionCmdrMCLinkses
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.

You realize fish didn't just one day start walking out of the sea, right? Evolution is gradual. They started going to the surface more often, then started being able to deal with water, than actually using it, then wobbling up onto land for 30 second intervals or something, then staying a little longer, etc. It's not like 'damn, that killer whale can walk'.
Avatar image for luke1889
luke1889

14617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#228 luke1889
Member since 2004 • 14617 Posts

[QUOTE="syorks"]

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

quiglythegreat

No. It just takes a really goddamn long time.

...huh?  :?

When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses

*slaps forehead*

I hope you're joking. Seriously hope.

Avatar image for CmdrMCLinkses
CmdrMCLinkses

778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#229 CmdrMCLinkses
Member since 2007 • 778 Posts
[QUOTE="CmdrMCLinkses"][QUOTE="Hiddai"][QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionquiglythegreat
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.

You realize fish didn't just one day start walking out of the sea, right? Evolution is gradual. They started going to the surface more often, then started being able to deal with water, than actually using it, then wobbling up onto land for 30 second intervals or something, then staying a little longer, etc. It's not like 'damn, that killer whale can walk'.

How? If the fish slowly develops lungs then how will it breath under water? How will it grow legs to walk?How could a fish just grow legs to walk?
Avatar image for CmdrMCLinkses
CmdrMCLinkses

778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#230 CmdrMCLinkses
Member since 2007 • 778 Posts

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="syorks"]

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

luke1889

No. It just takes a really goddamn long time.

...huh?  :?

When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses

*slaps forehead*

I hope you're joking. Seriously hope.

He seriously did! But it was too late the scietists already believed him.
Avatar image for luke1889
luke1889

14617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#231 luke1889
Member since 2004 • 14617 Posts
[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="syorks"]

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

CmdrMCLinkses

No. It just takes a really goddamn long time.

...huh?  :?

When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses

*slaps forehead*

I hope you're joking. Seriously hope.

He seriously did! But it was too late the scietists already believed him.

I'm sorry sir, but without any hard, unbiased evidence on that outlandish claim, no-one's going to believe you on that one.

That's like Newton saying gravity wasn't real on his deathbed. Or Einstien saying relativity was a joke on his. Et cetera.

Avatar image for ProudLarry
ProudLarry

13511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#232 ProudLarry
Member since 2004 • 13511 Posts

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CmdrMCLinkses"][QUOTE="Hiddai"][QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionCmdrMCLinkses
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.

You realize fish didn't just one day start walking out of the sea, right? Evolution is gradual. They started going to the surface more often, then started being able to deal with water, than actually using it, then wobbling up onto land for 30 second intervals or something, then staying a little longer, etc. It's not like 'damn, that killer whale can walk'.

How? If the fish slowly develops lungs then how will it breath under water? How will it grow legs to walk?How could a fish just grow legs to walk?

Try looking at the Lungfish, it has primative lungs which can be used to help it breath outside of water, but it still has gills.

Similar animals are what preceded land animals. 

Avatar image for ProudLarry
ProudLarry

13511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#233 ProudLarry
Member since 2004 • 13511 Posts
[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="syorks"]

Ok, so do u believe in evolution?

CmdrMCLinkses

No. It just takes a really goddamn long time.

...huh? :?

When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses

*slaps forehead*

I hope you're joking. Seriously hope.

He seriously did! But it was too late the scietists already believed him.

That's nothing more than an urban legend. The fact is that Darwin worked on biologic evolution up until his death, and tehre arn't any records that say that he denied evolution on his death bed. Accounts from his family that was even present when he was dying contradict the idea that he claimed "he made it up".

Avatar image for dainjah1010
dainjah1010

463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#234 dainjah1010
Member since 2005 • 463 Posts

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CmdrMCLinkses"][QUOTE="Hiddai"][QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionCmdrMCLinkses
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.

You realize fish didn't just one day start walking out of the sea, right? Evolution is gradual. They started going to the surface more often, then started being able to deal with water, than actually using it, then wobbling up onto land for 30 second intervals or something, then staying a little longer, etc. It's not like 'damn, that killer whale can walk'.

How? If the fish slowly develops lungs then how will it breath under water? How will it grow legs to walk?How could a fish just grow legs to walk?

 

See: Lungfish, Tiktaalik, and mudskippers possible answers. 

Avatar image for Donkey_Puncher
Donkey_Puncher

5083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#235 Donkey_Puncher
Member since 2005 • 5083 Posts

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

syorks

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well.  You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#236 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses
Ignorance is bliss... No such event ever happened. That is creationist slander, as Richard Dawkins points out in The God Delusion. Evolution is not racist by any means and racism is rather ridiculous to tie in with evolution, as all variation is spur-of-the-moment and does not have a goal other than survival. The races you see today are mere genetic and environmental variations in a group of people, not any sort of higher-development. It is not sexist in any sense of the word either. For your own sake, never try to talk racial biology again.
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#237 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CmdrMCLinkses"][QUOTE="Hiddai"][QUOTE="yamum2"]Nope everything disproves evolutionCmdrMCLinkses
really...

Okay this is one reason.How could a fish or water organizm grow legs and walk on land? Plus the theory also indecates thatall of those animals were asexual. This means that they were both male and female. That means in order to have life on the land the creature would have to be split in half and reproduce without dying. Also how woul a creature produce lungs? What the fish would flob up a bveach and back down? Why does evolution also have tons of missing links? When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.

You realize fish didn't just one day start walking out of the sea, right? Evolution is gradual. They started going to the surface more often, then started being able to deal with water, than actually using it, then wobbling up onto land for 30 second intervals or something, then staying a little longer, etc. It's not like 'damn, that killer whale can walk'.

How? If the fish slowly develops lungs then how will it breath under water? How will it grow legs to walk?How could a fish just grow legs to walk?

  Salamanders must bug the crap out of you.
Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#238 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
[QUOTE="syorks"]

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

Donkey_Puncher

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Yes, that is true, but there is not a high likelihood of variation in mitosis, as an exact replica of the parent cell is produced. Weak traits are passed on and survival of the fittest is at its high with these organisms. These organisms had to have evolved by physics or by genetic mutations in their RNA.
Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#239 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Donkey_Puncher

I don't agree with this statement.

It's my understanding that single celled organisms reproduce through asexual means.  I don't know of any such organisms that reproduce in any kind of sexual fashion. 

Avatar image for Donkey_Puncher
Donkey_Puncher

5083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#240 Donkey_Puncher
Member since 2005 • 5083 Posts
[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="syorks"]

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

CptJSparrow

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Yes, that is true, but there is not a high likelihood of variation in mitosis, as an exact replica of the parent cell is produced. Weak traits are passed on and survival of the fittest is at its high with these organisms. These organisms had to have evolved by physics or by genetic mutations in their RNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

And just to anyone who wants to realize all the benefits of sex, here they are.  Sex is great.  (No pun intended)

Avatar image for Decessus
Decessus

5132

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: -5

#241 Decessus
Member since 2003 • 5132 Posts

When Charles Darwin died he said that he made it up. Evolution is also racist and shows more male domenince. Which were isues at the time.CmdrMCLinkses

This is a total myth.  He never said any such thing.

Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter.  The validity of a scientific theory is determined by the evidence supporting the theory, not on the theory's originator. 

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#242 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="syorks"]

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

Donkey_Puncher

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Yes, that is true, but there is not a high likelihood of variation in mitosis, as an exact replica of the parent cell is produced. Weak traits are passed on and survival of the fittest is at its high with these organisms. These organisms had to have evolved by physics or by genetic mutations in their RNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

And just to anyone who wants to realize all the benefits of sex, here they are. Sex is great. (No pun intended)

"The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself." Reasonable.
Avatar image for Donkey_Puncher
Donkey_Puncher

5083

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#243 Donkey_Puncher
Member since 2005 • 5083 Posts
[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Decessus

I don't agree with this statement.

It's my understanding that single celled organisms reproduce through asexual means.  I don't know of any such organisms that reproduce in any kind of sexual fashion. 

Single Cells in the same species (i.e. Bacteria) can create bridges between the two and exchange DNA. 

This is a main reason for Antibiotics becoming useless.  Besides resistant cells surviving and reproducing, they can pass on copies of the gene to new cells through single cell "Sex". 

It's not reproduction, merely DNA exchange which could be seen as "early" sex.

Avatar image for UGAThornhill
UGAThornhill

198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#244 UGAThornhill
Member since 2005 • 198 Posts
[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Decessus

I don't agree with this statement.

It's my understanding that single celled organisms reproduce through asexual means.  I don't know of any such organisms that reproduce in any kind of sexual fashion. 

We can quit calling it "sex" now.  It's called conjugation.  Everytime someone says "sex" I get this mental image of two E. coli doing things God never intended (I am a Christian but I realize some of you aren't... that's what we call a "pun").

I would also ask that people opposing evolution either make more intelligent comments or no comments at all. 

Who cares if Darwin said he made it up on his death bed?  Whether he based it all on evidence or he had a LSD-induced vision doesn't matter... The theory is out there now and can't just be dismissed with hearsay. 

And also please keep in mind that Darwin made all of his postulations without any knowledge of something we all take for granted: DNA.

Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#245 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="syorks"]

Wait if the early cells made an exact duplicate of the original then how could that lead to different adaptations. Cells could never have "advanced" w/o any help unless it was some diformaty which turned out to be beneficial.

Donkey_Puncher

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well.  You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Yeah actually u do.

Avatar image for Veemon_X
Veemon_X

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#246 Veemon_X
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts

I believe things evolve, but I do include it with in my religious beliefs. 

Yes. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And the two women are Lilith and Eve, respectively.bastards12345

Lilith, mother of both Sucubus and Incubus.

Avatar image for syorks
syorks

2399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#247 syorks
Member since 2006 • 2399 Posts
[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

Donkey_Puncher

I don't agree with this statement.

It's my understanding that single celled organisms reproduce through asexual means.  I don't know of any such organisms that reproduce in any kind of sexual fashion. 

Single Cells in the same species (i.e. Bacteria) can create bridges between the two and exchange DNA. 

This is a main reason for Antibiotics becoming useless.  Besides resistant cells surviving and reproducing, they can pass on copies of the gene to new cells through single cell "Sex". 

It's not reproduction, merely DNA exchange which could be seen as "early" sex.

it still doesn't explain the sex organs and everything else. Why would these have evolved if we could have just kept long "bridges" to exchange DNA. Why would there be 2 different sexs also if it started out with this bridge. it doesn't add up.

Avatar image for Matthew_Kaeser
Matthew_Kaeser

13493

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#248 Matthew_Kaeser
Member since 2002 • 13493 Posts
Yes, it is the only realistic possibility.
Avatar image for dj_pulserfan
dj_pulserfan

3102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#249 dj_pulserfan
Member since 2007 • 3102 Posts
Someone had a sig about this. I think this thread is gonna end up that way =/
Avatar image for -Karayan-
-Karayan-

6713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#250 -Karayan-
Member since 2006 • 6713 Posts
[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

Single Celled organisms can share genes through "sex" as well. You don't need reproductive organs to have "Sex" in a sense.

syorks

I don't agree with this statement.

It's my understanding that single celled organisms reproduce through asexual means. I don't know of any such organisms that reproduce in any kind of sexual fashion.

Single Cells in the same species (i.e. Bacteria) can create bridges between the two and exchange DNA.

This is a main reason for Antibiotics becoming useless. Besides resistant cells surviving and reproducing, they can pass on copies of the gene to new cells through single cell "Sex".

It's not reproduction, merely DNA exchange which could be seen as "early" sex.

it still doesn't explain the sex organs and everything else. Why would these have evolved if we could have just kept long "bridges" to exchange DNA. Why would there be 2 different sexs also if it started out with this bridge. it doesn't add up.

Because that doesn't work with such large organisms? :|Â