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.
how does fertilization take place on it's own?
it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?
it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?
how does fertilization take place on its own?
Bacteria eggs huh?
where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?
it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?
Lets see a response b4 wasting any more wordsWhen you go from the above to the below
This is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts"
You should at the very least acknowledge that people have pointed out there are many instances where animals today lay eggs and do not protect and nurture them.
Also you should acknowledge that eggs is a hereditary feature (if your parents are the type of animal that lays eggs then you are the type of animal that lays eggs) and that animals were laying eggs long before the chicken appeared on earth.
I understand though that you are not interested in science and probably didn't bother with the link I provided regarding the evolution of the egg. I understand that your real reason to doubt all of this stuff is not because of science (evidence based) but is because of your interpretation of the bible. In that case it is pointless me going to efforts to educate you on science.
They dont do eggs
Lets see a response b4 wasting any more words
Indeed -- most people who suddenly shift goalposts are very aware of it.
You'd think a response would merit at least a "well, I suppose that answers my question, but what about..."
Without something like that... yeah, you've got a deliberate goalpost shift.
Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?
How are eggs blindly formed in the first place .... and how are they capable of surviving.
Where are the transitions (on the macro level)?
Without reading the 81-page discussionhere are my thoughts on why some people in general reject evolution.
- Misunderstanding of the theory - the subject is often not included in science curricula, or if it is, teachers avoid teaching it to avoid controversy with parents. Thus people are not as educated on evolution as they should be and end up learning of it from propagandists (like Answers in Genesis).
- Claim: "Science, generally, threatens religion" - this is the "conflicting worlds" model, where one must choose either science or religion. Personally, I think the two occupy entirely different worlds ("separate worlds").
- Claim: "Evolution, specifically, threatens religion" - evolution may be thought to violate religious tenets on the age of the earth or the creation account. However, most world religions, including most versions of Christianity, are flexible enough to interpret their creation stories non-literally.
- Claim: "Evolution degrades our humanity" - not only is Earth revealed by Copernicus to be not at the center of anything, but now Darwin has revealed that we are animals.
- Claim: "Evolution = ethical nihilism and moral degradation" - this is the logical train: evolution implies there is no god; belief in the theory of evolution thus leads to atheism; in atheism there can be no morality and meaning; without morality and meaning, civil society has no basis; if civil society has no basis, we end up living immorally.
- Claim: "Evolution is about mutual struggle, not aid" - a common misconception about evolution is that every creature is inherently selfish and that nature is just violent. In reality, the animals that acquire habits of mutual aid are the fittest; this is especially visible with insect(-like creatures), such as bees and ants, and also among apes, wolves, etc., and even with humans.
@Guy Threepwood That's some interesting personal information, thank you for sharing.
Well, my only basis for rejecting evolution was my faith. Once I lost that faith, I had no particular basis for not believing in evolution. I then educated myself on it through various books (The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, Evolution by Donald Prothero, and the more technical book The Red Queen by Matthew Ridley), and accepted it as I have other uncontroversial scientific theories.
I would not nearly say that. Things evolve toward the purpose of successful self propagation.
It's a very good question- & you can tell by the reactions
The same problem is brought into focus in the case of the origin of Eukaryotes; how do you accidentally/ incrementally evolve a nucleus within a cell membrane when they are interdependent?
The current favored explanation is endosymbiosis, which by the chicken-egg analogy- would mean that an egg came along one day and accidentally engulfed an unsuspecting chicken, and it was just so...
True or not - a Darwinian explanation for a key event in the evolution of life has been pretty much abandoned.
i.e. today it's not so much a question of whether Darwinism falls short as an explanation for 'the origin of species'. But rather how far short is it going to keep falling?
Apologies but I don't see the issue.
Endosymbiosis isn't Darwinian in origin. It wasn't Darwin's idea. It post-dates Darwin's masterwork by a century.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?