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.
A4C said:There is only one answer - The first man and the first woman had respective organs in place exactly how we have today and were able to procreate in the same manner. Unless you can explain that this occurred in some other way than divine creation of God, I dont think I am lacking any explanation. Your reluctance to explain from an evolution point of view tells me that you have no answer . This only re inforces the contention that evolution should not be called a theory because it lacks a basic consideration: " How did reproduction evolve to what we see today?"
Not quite . I feel we may need back up on some of these assertions.Is evolution a theory now
Released By whom?Two cells are released into the environmental mileu
At this point, there is no need for egg or sperm, just the mixture of two genomes.
When exactly were these two points ?At this point, it is advantageous to specialize the sex cells. So, we have the
Interesting how it just develops -just like that. Was there any way you know of that that would have happened?So, we have the development of the egg and sperm.
Do these travelling sperm of yours go looking all over the world or is it just a local thingThe sperm is very active and moves through the environment in search of the egg.
interestingblastogenesis
Each organism has both male and female organs (testes and ovaries).
A4C said:Has the "Theory of evolution" got over the stumbling block of asexual to sexual reproduction. Surely when this obstacle was circumvented somehow only then could it justify the title "theory"
Tashena said:Please don't take this personally Loudmouth... but how does one fall out of faith? If you fell out of it, you never had it to begin with. The thing that you may have confussed is that God NEVER moves away from us.. we are the ones who move away from him. I would like to hear more about this if and when you have the time.
Tashena
gladiatrix said:No, evolution is not simply a hypothesis.
It is an explanation of what has happened to life AFTER life arose from pre-biotic conditions on Earth.
This explanation has nearly a couple of centuries worth of evidence to support it.
Technically.Eternal Mindset said:It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.
So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?
Vigil said:Macro-Evolution is still in the fantasy stage.
Micro-Evolution (AKA:Adaptation) is a factual Theory.
I'll respond to this after I have read the whole thing.USincognito said:
Vigil said:I'll respond to this after I have read the whole thing.
As it stands if this a "Million dollar story made out of 10 pennies" I'm going to be sevrely let down again.
Vigil.
A4C said:I wonder in the "fruit fly" example if there was any change in the DNA of the species. This would seem to be the defining factor.
Sounds Fair.USincognito said:I'll tell you what. Pick any one that you find particularly compelling or particularly uncompelling and we can discuss it here.
USincognito said:This tangent you're going off on is more suited for discussion in General Apologetics. The debate here is between those who accept or advocate Creationism or Evolution. There are Christians who accept evolution, so the most useful discussion would be about the evidence, and not our individual beliefs.
Not to be too nitpicky or anything. But has anyone else noticed this posting style recently among creationists here? Like, no paragraphs, but finishing every sentence with three or more dots?... I can only wonder. Why you such a writing style? Which wrong with paragraphs and single dots?Tashena said:Well I'd have to say that what I said earlier about "falling out of faith"... that's not a personal belief. More of a fact if you followed Christian principles. There is a difference trust me and I believe I've done well in keeping my beliefs about evoulution on a nutreal plain.And there is a difference in acknoweledging the theory of evolution or flat out ignoring it exists. I am not doing either... I would consider myself to be OBSERVING others' opinions.. however strongly I choose to disagree if and when I see something that YOU would say doesn't follow the critera of my faith... that's your opinion and your entitled just like everyone else.....
It doesn't prove anything. However, it does falsify creationism and support evolution.MarkT said:It all depends on your interpretation. The evidence really doesn't prove anything.
Since speciation has been observed, the evolution of new species has been observed. Since species is the only meaningfull classification in biology, and creationists have not been able to show a boundary on speciation or a definition of kinds, it supports evolution and falsifies creationism.Speciation, for example, can be observed but it doesn't prove anything.
This statement shows your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.We can see fish are still fish and birds are still birds, even though new species are continually being created.
characters like what. Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material.And it's not likely genetic mutations can lead to new characters on a preexisting organism. We seem to be pretty well defined by nature and the genetic sequence to be what we are. And that applies to all living things.
Nope, bat's are not 98% similar to birds. Bats share wings with birds, but have different genes.Let's say we have most of the genes for wings. That would be like saying we're 98% similar to birds, for example.
If they evolved now we'd still be human. Just would be a new species of human.All we're missing, theoretically, is a few genes. But to make even one and make it fit, would affect a change in the entire sequence. We wouldn't be human anymore.
Science explains why wings require the right size body. It's called aerodynamics.Wings require the right size body for some reason. Science doesn't explain why and evolution or random changes would not predict it.
Most mutations will be hardly noticeable. However, they will give a benefit. The life threatening mutations will be weeded out of the gene pool and won't pose a problem for the population. They will be gone after the organism has died.So mutations that occur that fit would be hardly noticeable and the ones that don't fit would be life threatening.
Nonsense. Get a grip of statistics and populations.But the idea that we are descended from a common ancestor is what the theory predicts. Logically it would be impossible given the limited nature of mutational changes that an organism can survive without dying.
Science doesn't do proof. Add 'the scientific method' to the things you have to read up on.And it hasn't been proven.
Nope. However, the twin nested hierarchy does. As do the found transitional species. As do genetic and morphological similarities. As does biogeography. If any of the above terms are unclear to you, read up on them. After you have done so, you can come back.You could still have evolution and observe speciation but that wouldn't prove everything is related by descent to a common ancestor.
Yes, but humans still do not have 'wing' genes. Seriously, they just don't have them. We don't have a lot of other genes to. But, if you want to keep up that we do have them, you might want to show me the research papers of the researchers that discovered them.MarkT said:Which genes are active? That's the determinant. Large parts of the sequence aren't active. They're in the garbage bin of the sequence.
Actually, no. We have a pretty good idea on what determines whether a particular gene is going to be active. It's not determined by the soul, not by 'life' (whatever you may mean by that). It's other genes and certain chemicals which do the trick. We do not know everything about how it works, but we have come a pretty long way in the last 30 years or so.I think it's the soul or life of the organism that activates the proper genes.
Because we do not have the genes to become birds maybe? Seems a pretty obvious reason to me.Why is it that even though there is a shuffling of genes, humans beget humans and not birds or something else ie. something that's part human and part bird or part horse?
Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material.
Nope. However, the twin nested hierarchy does. As do the found transitional species. As do genetic and morphological similarities. As does biogeography. If any of the above terms are unclear to you, read up on them. After you have done so, you can come back.
Then pray tell me what are.MarkT said:Tom
Those things are not characters.
Nope. The nested hierarchy is the only possible classification system that makes sense. If evolution is true, this should be the case. Try classifying cars using cladistical analysis. You wont get a twin nested hierarchy. Try classifying cutlery using cladistical analysis. You won't get a twin nested hierarchy. However, when classifying life, you get a twin-nested hierarchy. This points to common ancestry.Nope. Ridiculous. The classification system allows you to create a nested hierarchy that's all. Nice story but it isn't true.
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?