-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486
- Thread starter ernest_theweedwhackerguy
- Start date
- Status
Early sex did not involve male and female. Sex existed before gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction
How did the butterfly evolve? Did a catapillar decide one day that it wanted to fly?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/abs/401447a0.html
For a lay comment explaining some of the scientific jargon see:http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960566507.Ev.r.html
What doesn't make sense about it? Speciation through hybridization is much more common in plants than in animals.
http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/platypus.htm
Most of your questions have answers which you can easily find for yourself. I found all the sites above within 10 minutes.
Lots of things don't make sense until you study them. Then it falls into place.
Upvote
0
Thats because you weren't looking for my questions, you typed in platypus and didn't look to see if it answered my question.
They showed the same thing I've already seen... one predecessor that is conlcusive as being an ancestor, but thats it.. one, that can't find anything that is an ancestor to that Obdurodon.
You found them because you didn't look to see if it answered the question, you didn't find anything.
Yes, sex existed before gender which means at some point a male had to come into existence and at the same time a female would have had to come into existence at the same time or they would have died off. Are you saying that is what happened? None of those answer that question. Pay more attention to what you read please.
Upvote
0
What evidence do you have that this is "made up"? All the species mentioned have been observed. Their reproductive methods have been observed.
What has not been answered?
Perhaps you need the answers translated into language that you understand?
1. Most organisms have sex without having male and female sexes.
2. Many organisms are hermaphrodites (they have both male and female reproductive organs).
3. Some hermaphrodites have found ways to get out of the female role and become "false males" who fertilize others without getting their own eggs fertilized. This gives them a competitive advantage in reproduction.
4. Over time, this can drive the species to generate separate sexes and eliminate hermaphrodites.
The other points in the list gave two other ways that sexual reproduction could evolve from asexual reproduction.
So don't say you haven't been answered.
Upvote
0
Ah, the way you phrased your question initially, I thought you were proposing that the platypus must be a hybrid.
But what you are really getting at is that we do not have a complete lineage of the platypus.
So what? You probably don't know your own family tree much beyond your grandparents. Does that mean that you had no ancestors prior to them?
Looking at fossils is a little like doing the kindergarten exercise of looking at pictures and figuring out which one came before the other. Just because you don't have a snapshot every three seconds doesn't mean you can't work out that somewhere between eating breakfast at home and playing on the swings at recess, there must have been a trip from home to school. And just because we don't know if it was by bicycle, bus or car doesn't mean the kids magically appeared at school without travelling the intervening distance.
So we can't identify the immediate ancestor of Obdurodon. Doesn't mean it didn't have an ancestor. No more than not knowing the name of your great-great-great grandfather means you didn't have one.
No, read the other posts on that topic.
Upvote
0
You hit the nail on the head, gluadys. Someone needs to explain to our new friend the difference between having evidence for common ancestry and having a species-by-species breakdown of every single transitional sequence in the history of evolution.
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2004
- 7,646
- 251
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Dog's still are wolves, if you think about it.
You just have different species.
NOT evolution, but adaptation.
Upvote
0
I propose to you the same challenge I gave ChristianFAQed.
Describe how a species adapts.
If you describe the process correctly, you have described evolution.
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2004
- 7,646
- 251
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Ok. You keep saying things like this, but never actually answer my question.
I read what you asked me to read, and still, there is more scientific mumbo jumbo than actual evidence that helps back up c-14 dating.
I mean, all these things about the half life of carbon. How do they know that these things ARE actually accurate, and how do we know that these reports and synopsis's aren't just made up to try to make it so what these scientists say are actually true?
I do NOT trust this government more than I can pick up the U.S and throw it. So, I need actual EVIDENCE and/or good solid proof that this is actually how c-14 dating works.
Upvote
0
No, that is not the point, the point is that no one can explain how it evolved. They point back to one ancestor and say Hey, see it did evolve! but the doesn't answer why it would evolved.
The fact that you don't care how many holes there are in the fossil record only hows that you are like every other evolutionist. You have blind faith in evolution that it will fill in the gaps despite its seeming ability to be unable to do that.
Upvote
0
Fortunately science is not soley the responsibility of the U.S. government - we Brits are keeping you all in line.
Seriously, the scientific community is world wide and controlled by peer review - not by a government.
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2004
- 7,646
- 251
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, it's safe to say you're a typical atheist, blindly believing in science, just as you say we blindly believe in our God's ability to create the whole universe, and everything beyond.
What's your point?
Upvote
0
No, you only show how a species adapts to survive.
If evolution was only about surviving then birds wouldn't know how to fly and we wouldn't have gotten much past single cell organisms. It didn't need to become multicelled to survive any more than the flu virus needs to be more than a virus to survive.
Adaptation involves surviving and doesn't always mean advancing to do so.
Upvote
0
PS, if you are an athiest, you can't explain life at all. Even if by the 1 to 80 trillionth of a chance that all the compounds that life is made up of came together and formed a single cell you would have the same thing you would have if you took different pieces of the human body and sowed them together.... a dead body. It doesn't matter how many volts you put through it, it will always be dead.
Same with a single celled organism, if you combined all of the compounds together and ran volts through it all day, even if it did some how create a cell, it wouldn't be alive.
Same with a single celled organism, if you combined all of the compounds together and ran volts through it all day, even if it did some how create a cell, it wouldn't be alive.
Upvote
0
Heh, no they can't, but they will say that's not evidence and then point you to a bunch of links that don't answer your question either
Upvote
0
I assume when you say 'they' you are referring to evolutionary biologists, in which case yes, they certainly can explain how the eye could have evolved according to the mechanisms of evolution. I'm not going to point you to a bunch of links but instead to a book titled 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. Refer yourself specifically to Chapter 4 where Dawkins walks the reader through a logical argument for the evolution of the eye (it coincidentally applies to the evolution of any given body part) by asking the reader a series of questions. It is a very good read and provides precious insights into evolution you may be missing.
I do not know the post count for this forum, otherwise I would transcribe Dawkins' writings on the topic here. Point is, the mechanisms for evolution do provide a possible explanation for the evolution of the eye, but in order to accept that you have to be susceptible and willing to believe they (evolutionary biologists) *might* be able to answer the question adequately in the first place. In other words, don't start reading Dawkins if you feel you would not benefit from hearing another's perspective.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
