Evolution

[Malchik]

There are many people in this world who find it easy to deny reality however much evidence there is to prove they are wrong. America has never lost a war, the US upholds the Geneva convention, etc. etc. Such people are completely closed to hearing or seeing anything that does not fit with their ideas and simply deny that such evidence exists. Arguing with them is pointless. If I make the statement that 'genetic engineering will lead inexorably to the acceptance of Eugenics' there are many who would disagree. Sadly on this point I am as blinkered as others are on evolution. Therefore I will never raise the matter for discussion.

 

The point is, those who are so sure of their argument they do not permit the thought of any concessions are impossible to debate with - whichever side the argument they represent.

 

Anyway, if I see anything else that looks like pushing this towards a flame war, I'll lock the thread.

[ninja_lord666]

+ Ninja_666

-you said one celled organisms bonded together over hundreds of years in colonies to become one multiple-celled organism. Why would they do that? No predators.

-if prey-fish came out of rivers, then why are there hundreds of predators roaming the lands? Did those follow the prey? There are still enough fish in the sea (and rivers) to eat.

Ever heard of amoebas? Those are single celled predators. They absorb and eat other single celled organisms. That's just one example. There are many single celled organisms that eat other single celled organisms.

Yes, but there were more amphibious creatures on land. They had no predators, so the amphibians flourished. The predators came out of the water for easy food.

[Peregrine]

I'm not going to quote anything, would just be a lot of work for a post wich will be read once.

 

+ Ninja_666

-you said one celled organisms bonded together over hundreds of years in colonies to become one multiple-celled organism. Why would they do that? No predators.

 

Think for a second: if you reproduce by splitting, where is the most likely place your offspring will end up? Right next to you.

 

-if prey-fish came out of rivers, then why are there hundreds of predators roaming the lands? Did those follow the prey? There are still enough fish in the sea (and rivers) to eat.

 

WRONG. In every single environment where predators exist, their population is kept well below their maximum breeding rate by a lack of prey. For the first predators to leave the water, they were moving from an environment with high competition to one where there was essentially none.

 

As a side note, this is true of every self-replicating entity, not just predators. Due to the mechanics of exponential growth, unless there are growth limits imposed by lack of resources, within a fairly small number of generations the number of entities will exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. If those entities are able to move to an environment where there is less/no competition for resources, their numbers will quickly grow.

 

 

-look at this in the first post of the topic: "SickleYield, and likely other users of this forum, claims to have university-level degrees in biology and chemistry. Despite this, she believes (casting serious doubt on those supposed degrees) that the universe is between 6-10,000 years old, evolution fails to provide an explanation" that sounds like a debate between evolutionism and creationism to me.

 

Did I say the word "god"? The debate is whether evolution is correct or not. The fact that some people believe the alternative is divine intervention is irrelevant.

+ Peregrine

- I would like to see why nature would make somethin more complex. Like said above, one celled organisms had no predators to be afraid of. Nature allways keeps it simple and balanced. That's why when people mess with it, stuff goes wrong.

 

Because many complex features improve the survival options. For example, a complex eye provides countless benefits to the organism.

 

And predators would almost inevitably evolve. Getting your resources by killing someone else is far more efficent than gathering them for yourself. Any ability to do this would immediately be favored by natural selection, and the species (whatever the equivalent is at such a primitive level) developing it would become more and more specialized at it.

-Sexual reproduction is also cloning? Cloning is only cloning when Subject B, cloned from Subject A, is completely identical to Subject A. It is true you get one half of DNA of your dad, and one of you mom, but that can't be called cloning.

 

Read what I wrote before trying to comment. I said very clearly that the mechanisms are the same. In both cases, the DNA strands are copied by the exact same mechanisms. The only difference is that in asexual reproduction, all of the DNA is copied at once and dumped into a cell, while in sexual reproduction half the DNA is copied in two different cells, then dumped into the offspring cell. Once the offspring cell has its DNA, by whatever method, growth and development proceed by the exact same methods.

-About the fish: so a fish who could survive in air a bit longer than others would evolve (after hundreds of years) into a amphibious being? A jumping fish never has solid ground under its fins, why would evolution grand it legs in stead of wings? Or did you talk about a fish who can survive a bit longer on land than others?

 

Fish ALREADY have legs. Fins might not be very efficient legs, but if absolutely necessary, a fish out of water (assuming it could breathe) could move using them. Any increased ability to use them for that purpose would be favored by natural selection, and over a long enough time, the fins would change proportions and details and be considered true legs.

Every fish on land dies. Some get lucky and a wave picks them up. But that would not set the process in motion to become amphibious creatures.

 

A fish that can survive longer on land is more likely to get a wave before it dies. Any increased ability to survive on land would be favored by natural selection, and increased even more. Eventually, this increased survival ability passes the threshold where the former fish can live on land.

 

-And why is it impossible to have multiple-celled organisms without single-celled ones? If you say that, please give a good arguement. Now you're the one without argumentation with your statements.

 

No, I'm arguing a simple fact of biology. Every single mutli-cellular organism begins as a single-cell organism. If you think for a second, you would realize that you were once a single-celled organism.

[FritzDerochebrune]

Think for a second: if you reproduce by splitting, where is the most likely place your offspring will end up? Right next to you.

WHY would they do that, not HOW.

 

WRONG. In every single environment where predators exist, their population is kept well below their maximum breeding rate by a lack of prey. For the first predators to leave the water, they were moving from an environment with high competition to one where there was essentially none.

So now the prey AND the predator came out of the water? Nature does keeps things balanced, so those events should happen around the same time. But if predators evolved at the same time as the prey, why would the prey evolve? You just go from one hostile environement to another.

As a side note, this is true of every self-replicating entity, not just predators. Due to the mechanics of exponential growth, unless there are growth limits imposed by lack of resources, within a fairly small number of generations the number of entities will exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. If those entities are able to move to an environment where there is less/no competition for resources, their numbers will quickly grow.

Then why doesn't this count for humans? We reproduce faster and more efficient then ever. Diseases are cured, disasters don't even kill half the people they used to any more,... We are superior over nature. We think, feel and can even destroy while we know what we are doing. Still your statement says everything is affected.

 

Did I say the word "god"? The debate is whether evolution is correct or not. The fact that some people believe the alternative is divine intervention is irrelevant.

Did I say it? I only said this is clearly a case of Evolutionism vs. Creationism.

 

Because many complex features improve the survival options. For example, a complex eye provides countless benefits to the organism.

Do you know how hard it would be to create a stable complex lifeform? Unless it came from another stable complex lifeform, impossible. Even with it coming from another stable complex lifeform, there is still a big chance of things going wrong.

And predators would almost inevitably evolve. Getting your resources by killing someone else is far more efficent than gathering them for yourself. Any ability to do this would immediately be favored by natural selection, and the species (whatever the equivalent is at such a primitive level) developing it would become more and more specialized at it.

Why would a predator kill another animal to eat the resources it gathered? If a predator eats fruit and vegetables, it DIES.

Read what I wrote before trying to comment. I said very clearly that the mechanisms are the same. In both cases, the DNA strands are copied by the exact same mechanisms. The only difference is that in asexual reproduction, all of the DNA is copied at once and dumped into a cell, while in sexual reproduction half the DNA is copied in two different cells, then dumped into the offspring cell. Once the offspring cell has its DNA, by whatever method, growth and development proceed by the exact same methods.

You said it the reproduction is cloning. I simple said what cloning really means. I can't help it if you are unclear in your statements.

Fish ALREADY have legs. Fins might not be very efficient legs, but if absolutely necessary, a fish out of water (assuming it could breathe) could move using them. Any increased ability to use them for that purpose would be favored by natural selection, and over a long enough time, the fins would change proportions and details and be considered true legs.

A fish needs more then only breath to survive on land. And I would like to see a fish reproduce on land. Not easy when your reproduction relies on water.

A fish that can survive longer on land is more likely to get a wave before it dies. Any increased ability to survive on land would be favored by natural selection, and increased even more. Eventually, this increased survival ability passes the threshold where the former fish can live on land.

Well, I don't see why a fish who had a near-death experience would be the start of a evolution to land creatures. Increased ability to survive on land? Why would nature favor that on a fish? How many fish have you seen on the beach? Not very much. That is because it only happens once in a time a fish is accidentally trown on land by a wave. Nature would have no reason to grand something like that to a race of fish, only to have a few survive if they accidentally got on land.

No, I'm arguing a simple fact of biology. Every single mutli-cellular organism begins as a single-cell organism. If you think for a second, you would realize that you were once a single-celled organism.

Yes, that is true, but my DNA stated I would become a mulitple-celled organism. Single-celled organisms have there own DNA/RNA, which states they (and there clones) stay single-celled. Just saying every multiple-celled organism was once, before birth, a single-celled one doesn't explain why all multiple-celled organisms are evolutions of single-celled ones.

 

cya

 

Fritz

[name_not_availble]

This is as it is stated in the religion ban rules. From my understanding it's using your personal religious beliefs as an argument tool, which I haven't really seen here properly, though some of the posts are borderline. I would throw hardcore creationism in with the whole religious beliefs bit, so let's avoid that too.

 

hoots7 and other people who have been toeing the line, I'm asking you to keep it clean - that means no use of the "r" word at all. Because at this rate the thread is going to get locked.

 

 

There are a few major flaws I can see with the evolutionary theory. The first is the assumption that a cell, or a primitive piece of genetic material created in an instant burst of energy has enough complex genetic material that is required, in precise amounts which enable it to multiply. For example, in some lightning strike, a primitive form of DNA or RNA is generated, pfft yeah right.

 

Strawman. The Theory of Evolution does NOT make any claims about the origins of the first life, only what happened once it formed. Even worse, no legitimate scientific theory claims that DNA came into being in its complex modern form. The first replicators were simple chemical compounds, over time, they added complexity, added structures, etc. DNA and RNA are far down the line from those initial forms.

 

Secondly, i have a problem with the theory of a single celled organism changing to a multi-cellular organism. This would require, once again almost a complete re-writing of genetic material, simply coming from no where.

 

And you are completely wrong. Changing from a single cell to multiple cells is actually very easy. The first instances of it would have been extremely inefficient, and probably involved colonies of single-cell organisms as a starting point. Specialization in cells is far, far down the line from this point, you would have seen very little difference between the first multicellular organisms and a pair of single-cell organisms sitting next to each other.

 

This reproduction problem also “may have occurred over millions of years”. Yeah right, some poor species is going to have half a penis for 20 million years.

 

Wrong. The external sexual organs have absolutely nothing to do with sexual reproduction. Remember, sexual reproduction also includes plant pollen and all the various fish who mix their sex cells by squirting them out into the water.

 

And in any case, you don't have half a penis, you just have a shorter-than-modern penis, accompanied by female reproductive organs of similar size. At every size from a small bump paired with a shallow cup to full porn-star proportions, sexual reproduction is possible.

 

In conclusion, the odds that we evolved are so infinitely insignificant and minute that anyone who thinks about the detailed steps logically, with an open mind should be able to rationally realize that we did not evolve.

 

Clearly you don't understand the power of cumulative selection. Evolution is NOT random. Cumulative selection is able to produce an end result orders of magnitude faster than random chance. In fact, if you properly understand natrual selection, genetics, and anatomy, the odds that we did NOT evolve are so minute that it is blindingly obvious that we did.

 

_________________________________________________________

Your arguements are weak and flawfull.

 

The Theory of Evolution does NOT make any claims about the origins of the first life, only what happened once it formed. Even worse, no legitimate scientific theory claims that DNA came into being in its complex modern form. The first replicators were simple chemical compounds, over time, they added complexity, added structures, etc. DNA and RNA are far down the line from those initial forms.

 

If the THEORY of evolution does not mentio the origins of the first life, how can you possible believe in it. Do i really need to post my image again? Isn't science all about realism, and believing in the explained? Isn't this the reason you don't believe in religion? If you can not explain the origin (the most important part) of your Theory, how can it possible be considered rational?

 

Changing from a single cell to multiple cells is actually very easy. The first instances of it would have been extremely inefficient, and probably involved colonies of single-cell organisms as a starting point. Specialization in cells is far, far down the line from this point, you would have seen very little difference between the first multicellular organisms and a pair of single-cell organisms sitting next to each other.

 

As a matter of fact, you are the one incorrect. The reason that single cells join into more complex structures for example tissues, organs and systems is due to the very genetic material and instructions contained within their nucleus. You have failed to consider the fact that primitive cells if they existed would not have had a nucleus with this genetic information and therefore could not bond in this way. Evolution is an extremely inaccurate way of looking at the world, as it mearly states that first there was a lump of living material (it fails to state the complexity, how it fored, or what it was made of). Then an arrow to a few million, maby billion years later. Then, we have fish, coming from a cell which CAN NOT multiply, CAN NOT bond into more complex, multicellular organisms, and more importantly, CAN NOT gain added genetic material due to the limitations of the (if it had it) primitive genome (research it if you don't know what this is, it's too long to type).

 

1) Asexual vs. sexual reproduction has absolutely nothing to do with the rate of reproduction. The only reason asexual organisms tend to reproduce so fast is asexual organisms also tend to be extremely small and simple.

 

This is my very point. The organs and mechanisms required for sexual reproduction require a relativly large organism. In order for the transferation to occur, an organism the size of a few cells in diameter would have to develope appendages or some form of mechanism allowing it to reproduce mechanically. It would also require all the necessary muscles. It is physcally impossible to cram all these requirements into an organism (previously asexual). For your proposal to be phesable, the organism would first have to multiply many times in size, and then develope the organs and muscles in one generation, and this would have had to happen in perfect sychronization with another member of it's species, but the exact opposite in order for the mutations to be usefull. The fact that the mutation would have to be literally perfect, by both genders accounts also adds doubt to this notion.

 

2) Sexual reproduction has huge advantages in mixing genes. A sexually-reproducing species will adapt to its environment much faster than an asexual one.

 

Sure, sexual reproduction has advantages in mixing genes, but the genes required to reproduce sexually are extremely complex and would have to be derrived from an extremely primitive, tiny organism, for long periods of time, being aboslutly useless. You have to consider the fact that if the sexual proecss was being developed over millions of years, the organisms in question would have to be the carriers of completely useless genes for large portions of time. This would lead to a huge disadvantage as a species and, untill the system was complete and perfected, the organisms would have no actual use for the system without some kind of future plan for the organs, which would not be present in a godless, evolutionary world. Think, a penis without testicles is useless, and testicles without a penis are also useless. There is no point in having either without the other, but it is extremely unlikely that both were developed at the same time, in conjunction with the *censored*, overies and ovum in the female reproductive system.

 

PS: I had to cut some stuff from the top reply section because I apparantly posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text.

[ninja_lord666]

As a matter of fact, you are the one incorrect. The reason that single cells join into more complex structures for example tissues, organs and systems is due to the very genetic material and instructions contained within their nucleus. You have failed to consider the fact that primitive cells if they existed would not have had a nucleus with this genetic information and therefore could not bond in this way. Evolution is an extremely inaccurate way of looking at the world, as it mearly states that first there was a lump of living material (it fails to state the complexity, how it fored, or what it was made of). Then an arrow to a few million, maby billion years later. Then, we have fish, coming from a cell which CAN NOT multiply, CAN NOT bond into more complex, multicellular organisms, and more importantly, CAN NOT gain added genetic material due to the limitations of the (if it had it) primitive genome (research it if you don't know what this is, it's too long to type).

Simple cells evolved into complex cells. What's so impossible about that? Simple cells developed more organelles which would let the cell do more things.

 

This is my very point. The organs and mechanisms required for sexual reproduction require a relativly large organism. In order for the transferation to occur, an organism the size of a few cells in diameter would have to develope appendages or some form of mechanism allowing it to reproduce mechanically. It would also require all the necessary muscles. It is physcally impossible to cram all these requirements into an organism (previously asexual). For your proposal to be phesable, the organism would first have to multiply many times in size, and then develope the organs and muscles in one generation, and this would have had to happen in perfect sychronization with another member of it's species, but the exact opposite in order for the mutations to be usefull. The fact that the mutation would have to be literally perfect, by both genders accounts also adds doubt to this notion.

The problem is, you're making a jump from bacteria to humans. There is a lot more in between. Sponges, and cnidarians are asexual, yet those aren't so tiny. Primitive sexual reproduction isn't as complex as in mammals. Just look at fish. The female fish squirts out a bunch of eggs into the water while the male fish squirts out a bunch of semen into the water. That's not very complex. All the female needs is an organ to make the eggs and a couple muscles to squirt them out, and all the male needs is an organ to make the semen and a couple muscles to squirt them out.

 

 

Sure, sexual reproduction has advantages in mixing genes, but the genes required to reproduce sexually are extremely complex and would have to be derrived from an extremely primitive, tiny organism, for long periods of time, being aboslutly useless.

Sexual reproduction isn't that more complex than asexual reproduction. The only differences are meiosis and fertilization.

[Abramul]

If the THEORY of evolution does not mentio the origins of the first life, how can you possible believe in it. Do i really need to post my image again? Isn't science all about realism, and believing in the explained? Isn't this the reason you don't believe in religion? If you can not explain the origin (the most important part) of your Theory, how can it possible be considered rational?

Statistics does not specify how dice are made. Do you believe this makes it invalid?

[Peregrine]

If the THEORY of evolution does not mentio the origins of the first life, how can you possible believe in it. Do i really need to post my image again? Isn't science all about realism, and believing in the explained? Isn't this the reason you don't believe in religion? If you can not explain the origin (the most important part) of your Theory, how can it possible be considered rational?

 

Thank you for proving your total ignorance of science. Scientific theories are only intended to explain a specific concept/process/etc. What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that "force = mass x acceleration" is impossible to believe in because it doesn't explain where mass came from.

 

So once again, since you don't bother reading: the Theory of Evolution deals with what happens to life once it appears. Other scientific theories attempt to explain where that life came from, but that is an entirely different subject.

 

As a matter of fact, you are the one incorrect. The reason that single cells join into more complex structures for example tissues, organs and systems is due to the very genetic material and instructions contained within their nucleus. You have failed to consider the fact that primitive cells if they existed would not have had a nucleus with this genetic information and therefore could not bond in this way.

 

Are you trying to be wrong? It's like you understood what I was saying, and then for some reason decided to argue the precise opposite.

 

Cells in a developing organism join in this way. This process of joining evolved over millions of years, from a starting point of simple colonies.

 

Evolution is an extremely inaccurate way of looking at the world, as it mearly states that first there was a lump of living material (it fails to state the complexity, how it fored, or what it was made of).

 

The complexity required to start the evolutionary process is virtually none. And the origin of those first materials is dealt with by other theories. The fact that you demand some Grand Theory of Life to explain every detail of biology just shows your total ignorance of how science works.

 

Then, we have fish, coming from a cell which CAN NOT multiply, CAN NOT bond into more complex, multicellular organisms

 

Wrong beyond belief. Even the most primitive life can multiply, it's part of the definition of life. In fact, even quite a few non-living things can multiply.

 

And by the time fish appeared, complex multicellular organisms were old news by millions of years. Whatever the immediate ancestor of fish was, it was not a single-celled organism.

 

and more importantly, CAN NOT gain added genetic material due to the limitations of the (if it had it) primitive genome (research it if you don't know what this is, it's too long to type).

 

Wrong again. ANY genome can gain information, all it takes is a mistake in copying that adds an extra link to the chain. If the added genetic material is useful, it will be favored by natural selection and dominate the gene pool.

 

This is my very point. The organs and mechanisms required for sexual reproduction require a relativly large organism.

 

Emphasis on relatively. The absolute minimum for sexual reproduction is only a handful of cells (in theory, it could be done by a single-celled organism, which would briefly be a two-celled organism when reproducing).

 

In order for the transferation to occur, an organism the size of a few cells in diameter would have to develope appendages or some form of mechanism allowing it to reproduce mechanically.

 

Appendages are not necessary. All that sexual reproduction needs is a way for the two sex cells to meet. Fish, for example, just squirt them into the water to randomly mix.

 

It would also require all the necessary muscles.

 

Which is "zero". Plants reproduce sexually with no muscles.

 

It is physcally impossible to cram all these requirements into an organism (previously asexual). For your proposal to be phesable, the organism would first have to multiply many times in size, and then develope the organs and muscles in one generation, and this would have had to happen in perfect sychronization with another member of it's species, but the exact opposite in order for the mutations to be usefull. The fact that the mutation would have to be literally perfect, by both genders accounts also adds doubt to this notion.

 

For what seems like the millionth time: EVOLUTION IS GRADUAL. These things do NOT happen in one generation. The Theory of Evolution does NOT claim that they do. The fact that you actually think this is a valid argument shows your total ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so go away until you have bothered to do some research.

 

Think, a penis without testicles is useless, and testicles without a penis are also useless. There is no point in having either without the other, but it is extremely unlikely that both were developed at the same time, in conjunction with the *censored*, overies and ovum in the female reproductive system.

 

How fortunate that sexual reproduction does not require any of those. Plants reproduce just fine by sexual reproduction without any of those organs.

[Peregrine]

WHY would they do that, not HOW.

 

Because staying where you are requires less energy than moving to another location just for the sake of moving. As long as sufficient resources are available to continue life without moving, colonies will form.

 

So now the prey AND the predator came out of the water? Nature does keeps things balanced, so those events should happen around the same time. But if predators evolved at the same time as the prey, why would the prey evolve? You just go from one hostile environement to another.

 

They came out of the water, but at different times. And prey would evolve because even if the predators remain constant, the other environmental factors are more favorable. Who cares if you're still losing the same percentage of the species to predators if you're losing far less of it to starving to death.

 

Then why doesn't this count for humans? We reproduce faster and more efficient then ever. Diseases are cured, disasters don't even kill half the people they used to any more,... We are superior over nature. We think, feel and can even destroy while we know what we are doing. Still your statement says everything is affected.

 

 

I said EVERY self-replicating entity, humans included. Note that "faster and more efficient" is NOT the same thing as unlimited growth. Think for a second, that means reproducing as fast as physically possible. That means every female immediately starts having babies the moment it is possible, until they die. That means at least one child a year from the age of 15, multiplying the population by 5 every 20 years even assuming every female dies at 20. The fact that this is not happening should make it painfully obvious that the growth rate of humans is limited by environmental factors including limited resources.

 

Do you know how hard it would be to create a stable complex lifeform? Unless it came from another stable complex lifeform, impossible. Even with it coming from another stable complex lifeform, there is still a big chance of things going wrong.

 

That is why evolutionary changes are GRADUAL. GRADUAL. READ THE DAMN THEORY.

 

Why would a predator kill another animal to eat the resources it gathered? If a predator eats fruit and vegetables, it DIES.

 

RESOURCES. Think for a second. When you eat a steak, are you eating the grass the cow collected? Or are you eating the nutrients from that grass, processed by the cow and used to build its body?

 

A fish needs more then only breath to survive on land. And I would like to see a fish reproduce on land. Not easy when your reproduction relies on water.

 

That is why evolution is GRADUAL. Why is this so hard to understand? If reproduction depends on water, it's trivially easy to get your food on land (where there is less competition), then come back to the water briefly to breed. Eventually more and more of the fish's life shifts to the land as natural selection adapts them better.

 

Well, I don't see why a fish who had a near-death experience would be the start of a evolution to land creatures. Increased ability to survive on land? Why would nature favor that on a fish? How many fish have you seen on the beach? Not very much. That is because it only happens once in a time a fish is accidentally trown on land by a wave. Nature would have no reason to grand something like that to a race of fish, only to have a few survive if they accidentally got on land.

 

Think for half a second, please. A fish that dies no longer produces offspring. If some percentage of fish are stranded on land at some point in their life, some percentage will be able to survive the land long enough to make it back to the water. That percentage will have more offspring than the ones who die early in life. Those offspring will have more offspring, and so on.

 

And of course you only see it rarely on a sandy beach. Now expand your definition of "fish" to include places where there are seasonal changes in water levels, isolated ponds, droughts, etc. Or even on rocky beaches, where there are tide pools of varying depth which may or may not leave a fish stranded and dry before the tide comes back. I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of sea life in the open air on rocky beaches.

 

Yes, that is true, but my DNA stated I would become a mulitple-celled organism. Single-celled organisms have there own DNA/RNA, which states they (and there clones) stay single-celled. Just saying every multiple-celled organism was once, before birth, a single-celled one doesn't explain why all multiple-celled organisms are evolutions of single-celled ones.

 

Because the process is the same. The distinction between a multicellular organism and a colony of single-celled organisms is an arbitrary one. Just like a colony of single-celled organisms can grow from a single parent cell, a multicellular body grows from a single parent cell. Both are colonies of cells, the only difference is multicellular organisms are colonies of specialized cells. Over time, natural selection has favored genes that produce colonies where cells specialize in various tasks, and we call them bodies.

[name_not_availble]

Evolution is an extremely inaccurate way of looking at the world, as it mearly states that first there was a lump of living material (it fails to state the complexity, how it fored, or what it was made of).

 

The complexity required to start the evolutionary process is virtually none. And the origin of those first materials is dealt with by other theories. The fact that you demand some Grand Theory of Life to explain every detail of biology just shows your total ignorance of how science works.

 

In order for the transferation to occur, an organism the size of a few cells in diameter would have to develope appendages or some form of mechanism allowing it to reproduce mechanically.

 

Appendages are not necessary. All that sexual reproduction needs is a way for the two sex cells to meet. Fish, for example, just squirt them into the water to randomly mix.

 

Think, a penis without testicles is useless, and testicles without a penis are also useless. There is no point in having either without the other, but it is extremely unlikely that both were developed at the same time, in conjunction with the *censored*, overies and ovum in the female reproductive system.

 

Thank you for proving your total ignorance of science. Scientific theories are only intended to explain a specific concept/process/etc. What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that "force = mass x acceleration" is impossible to believe in because it doesn't explain where mass came from.

 

So once again, since you don't bother reading: the Theory of Evolution deals with what happens to life once it appears. Other scientific theories attempt to explain where that life came from, but that is an entirely different subject.

 

Care to name any of these "Scientiffic Theories"? In order for a point to be valid, you need to know its origin. For example Newton's second law F=ma ; is completely irrelevant with this topic. I am mearly stating that as you can not explain accuratly the orgin of life, with any substantial evidence, i don't believe in it. For example, i would mearly be saying F does not equal x*a ; where we don't know the origin of x. It could be displacement, pressure or some other wacked out variable, however, its unexplained.

 

Are you trying to be wrong? It's like you understood what I was saying, and then for some reason decided to argue the precise opposite.

 

Cells in a developing organism join in this way. This process of joining evolved over millions of years, from a starting point of simple colonies.

 

Ok, so basically you are saying that cells join together with the non-existant geetic material required to do so over millions of years. "Simple colonies", have you considered where these colonies most probobly would have been? It is extremely unlikely that the location would have simply been dosile, allowing colonies to form over long time periods simply due to the fact that their copies are directly next to them. This is because of the constant unstability of the earth billions of years ago, with volcanoes everywhere, water scarcly present if present at all, and new land being formbed by molten rock every day.

 

The complexity required to start the evolutionary process is virtually none. And the origin of those first materials is dealt with by other theories. The fact that you demand some Grand Theory of Life to explain every detail of biology just shows your total ignorance of how science works.

 

I am not asking for some grand theory about the origins of everything. Im simply asking how you can possible say something happened with the key stage missing. For example, it would like be saing we developed electricity, and jumping from the dark ages to modern time.

 

Wrong beyond belief. Even the most primitive life can multiply, it's part of the definition of life. In fact, even quite a few non-living things can multiply.

 

And by the time fish appeared, complex multicellular organisms were old news by millions of years. Whatever the immediate ancestor of fish was, it was not a single-celled organism.

 

I am not asking the immediate ancestor of fish, I am stating that its ancestors would have had to come from somewhere. How did the specialized cells form, from the primitive blobs of living material at the start. These cells would not have had the changeable genes present in todays organisms (eg human steam cells). Even if the cells were to join into large balls, the balls would be useless as they would not be specialized. The reason multicelled organisms "work" is because they have a series of specialized cells which form into tissues, organs and systems. This would not have been present and therefore complex organisms could not have developed from the primitive balls or clumps of single celled organisms.

 

Wrong again. ANY genome can gain information, all it takes is a mistake in copying that adds an extra link to the chain. If the added genetic material is useful, it will be favored by natural selection and dominate the gene pool.

 

This is where you are wrong. The example was brought up earlier by chrisb (or whatever) that we have seen bacteria and other nasty things which could once be treated by medical revolutions such as penicillin begin to change so that they are not effected by the preventative methods and therefore evolution is changing. Every exampel that can be brought un for example to wolf to the poodle follows this trend. For example, the poodle is obviously more primitive genetically than the wolf (i need not explain it), but with the bacteria, the thing the antibodies were treating was actually a specific trait common to them. The trait was lost, a new trait was not gained. Its genetics simply got more primitive, the complete reverse of evolution, proving nothing.

 

Emphasis on relatively. The absolute minimum for sexual reproduction is only a handful of cells (in theory, it could be done by a single-celled organism, which would briefly be a two-celled organism when reproducing).

 

Appendages are not necessary. All that sexual reproduction needs is a way for the two sex cells to meet. Fish, for example, just squirt them into the water to randomly mix.

 

Which is "zero". Plants reproduce sexually with no muscles.

 

How fortunate that sexual reproduction does not require any of those. Plants reproduce just fine by sexual reproduction without any of those organs.

 

Actually, you are mistaken. Plants have male and female sexual organs, just like humans. For example, if you eat an apple, you are actually eating the equivalent of the ovary of an apple tree. And to the plants not requiring muscles, you are blaitantly ignorant in this case. If you actually knew how plants reproduce, you would know they cant do it by themselves. The require plants and insects, which require muscles. Ah yes, and secondly, the birds and insects would require a need to pollinate the plants, did they have so in the beginning? I don't think so.

____

Although you are the only person who i have been able to argue about this notion with that has any sense of rationality, believing in it for some sort of seemingly apparant scientiffic reasons, through your responses you have simply been talking, not solving any of my questions. How did the first primitive cells multiply without any genetic material? How did the sexual system of reproduction come into play with the MALE and FEMALE reproductive systems perfectly in match? and the many others i have stated.

 

PS: once again, i needed to delete some old quotes becaues i posted more than the allowed blocks. I have tried to include the cut quotes combined however.