rationalmind:

The reason I chose not to reply before was not because I didn't understand the question as deepsight was implying, it was because the question was dubious and I knew where you were going.

There are evidences showing that consciousness is not exclusive of the brain. Here is a research carried out recently that demonstrates that. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017173646.htm

You are free to have your reservations about the research but what you won't deny is, we at least have some evidences consciousness is controlled by the brain.

In that case, the question of how it does it is no longer relevant to the discourse as there is in the first place no single piece of evidence for "god did it" other than the usual appeal to ignorance.

From the absence of such evidence and the appeal to ignorance springs my request for the question of how to be answered.

You will agree with me that, if the question of how "god did it" is answered and simulated in the lab or somewhere else to produce same result, that will be a very strong reason to accept "god did it" argument.

Hope I answered you

So everything must be proved in the lab for you to agree its true?

JMAN05:

So everything must be proved in the lab for you to agree its true?

Trust me, I didn't fail to notice the strawman

Many evolutionist especially the atheists, do live by faith than do the theists.

too bad, as they despise faith, they still dont escape it anyway.

rationalmind:

Trust me, I didn't fail to notice the strawman

And I do notice the crafty.

JMAN05: Many evolutionist especially the atheists, do live by faith than do the theists.

too bad, as they despise faith, they still dont escape it anyway.

Does telling lies about atheist make. You guys comfortable?

Logicboy03:


Does telling lies about atheist make. You guys comfortable?

name the lie men. Or are you afraid ?

Seven pages and not a single take on even one of the 12 posers!

My lords spiritual, my lords temporal -

I rest.

Logicboy03:


Does telling lies about atheist make. You guys comfortable?

It sure does. What better way to prove that we are fools than misquoting,lying against us just to fit their deluded and hopeless reality?

libero00:

It sure does. What better way to prove that we are fools than misquoting,lying against us just to fit their deluded and hopeless reality?

shut up and show the lies or you prove publicly that you are simply a noise-making empty vessel that delights in myopic thinking and dogmatic faith in speculations.


Shameless accusers.

Deep Sight: In a prior thread about evolutionary questions, I had raised this as one of the significant posers against the Theory of Evolution. However I raised about 12 posers so this poser did not receive the attention I believe it merits.

I think it is absolutely cardinal and a most decisive point.

Evolution cannot explain the appearance of the sexes and is particularly dead on se.xual reproduction.

For thought -

The evolution of the mammary gland is difficult to explain; this is because mammary glands are typically required by mammals to feed their young. There are many theories on how mammary glands evolved, for example, it is believed that the mammary gland is a transformed sweat gland, more closely related to apocrine sweat glands. Since mammary glands do not fossilize well, supporting such theories with fossil evidence is difficult. Many of the current theories are based on comparisons between lines of living mammals – monotremes, marsupials and eutherians. One theory proposes that mammary glands evolved from glands that were used to keep the eggs of early mammals moist and free from infection (monotremes still lay eggs). Other theories suggest that early secretions were used directly by hatched young, or that the secretions were used by young to help them orient to their mothers.

Lactation is assumed to have developed long before the evolution of the mammary gland and mammals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammary_gland#Evolution

The evolution of se.xual reproduction is a major puzzle. The first fossilized evidence of se.xual reproduction in eukaryotes is from the Stenian period, about 1 to 1.2 billion years ago. There are two main processes during sexual reproduction in eukaryotes: meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair usually exchange genetic information to achieve homologous recombination. Evolutionary thought proposes several explanations for why sexual reproduction developed and why it is maintained. These reasons include fighting the accumulation of deleterious mutations, increasing rate of adaptation to changing environments (see the red queen hypothesis), dealing with competition (see the tangled bank hypothesis) or as an adaptation for repairing DNA damage and masking deleterious mutations. The maintenance of sexual reproduction has been explained by theories that work at several different levels of selection, though some of these models remain controversial. New models presented in recent years, however, suggest a basic advantage for sexual reproduction in slowly reproducing, complex organisms, exhibiting characteristics that depend on the specific environment that the given species inhabit, and the particular survival strategies that they employ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

I SAY - THAT - the evolution of sexuality in the appearance of the male and female forms and their sexually complimentary attributes particularly in the matter of reproduction, cannot be addressed by evolution, is a major flaw in the theory of evolution, and points to a code of existential forms which governs the appearance and existence of such forms as male and female.

Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Same as the flexibility and frequency of sex change amongst some species. Some species go as far parthenogenesis. The aim is the same, furtherance of life.

.

Joshthefirst: shut up and show the lies or you prove publicly that you are simply a noise-making empty vessel that delights in myopic thinking and dogmatic faith in speculations.


Shameless accusers.

Interesting, the last part I mean, the other parts were pointless and too much for this fool to understand. What makes us shameless? I would like to know oh wonderful child of the invisible bully in the sky.

May the spirit of the flying spaghetti monster have mercy on you.

libero00:


Interesting, the last part I mean, the other parts were pointless and too much for this fool to understand. What makes us shameless? I would like to know oh wonderful child of the invisible bully in the sky.

May the spirit of the flying spaghetti monster have mercy on you.

as usual. When asked to show proof of our lies they begin to talk nonsense. Show the lies and stop trying to change topic.

Kay 17:

Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Same as the flexibility and frequency of sex change amongst some species. Some species go as far parthenogenesis. The aim is the same, furtherance of life.

there is an aim to evolution then? There is a drive? What is this aim? Who is behind it? How is it achieved even in the most basic components of life forms?

I hope you know this aim contradicts your "everything is by chance" thinking?

Joshthefirst: there is an aim to evolution then? There is a drive? What is this aim? How is it achieved even in the most basic components of life forms?

I hope you know this aim contradicts your "everything is by chance" thinking?

Bro in christ,(you are a slave for christ aren't you?) saw it somewhere in proverbs that says it is pointless to argue with a fool less you turn like him. At the rate at which you keep arguing with us, you might just turn out to be like us.
And oh I am quite flattered that you replied, you know what they say: silence is the best answer.....

libero00:

Bro in christ,(you are a slave for christ aren't you?) saw it somewhere in proverbs that says it is pointless to argue with a fool less you turn like him. At the rate at which you keep arguing with us, you might just turn out to be like us.
And oh I am quite flattered that you replied, you know what they say: silence is the best answer.....

sorry, but my post was not directed at you. And yes, arguing can never change a man for christ. Only God's conviction can. I argue for other reasons.

And until you show us where we lied, you are simply showing your bias and prejudice and brainwash, rushing into an issue that you do not know of and accusing falsely without proof. Very low.

Joshthefirst: Very low.

What did you expect? - I am a shameless fool, remember?

Kay 17:

Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Same as the flexibility and frequency of sex change amongst some species. Some species go as far parthenogenesis. The aim is the same, furtherance of life.

I don't have the energy to start all over again.

Please address these questions, to understand the issues properly -

12 Posers

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction#20521482

After that, read these articles ->

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

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/intimate-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html

- - -> Which all give proposed scientific answers.

Finally have a look at the disputation put together by the Microbiologist and neurobiologist here -

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Then extract answers to the posers for me.

Thank you.

Joshthefirst: there is an aim to evolution then? There is a drive? What is this aim? Who is behind it? How is it achieved even in the most basic components of life forms?

I hope you know this aim contradicts your "everything is by chance" thinking?

"Who is behind it" one of the most biased questions possible.

Organisms are said to be primed with the instinct to survive, that instinct coupled with the environment (includes predators and landscape) form a mechanism through which the fittest survive.

The fittest organisms beat poorer ones in this grand competition, to battle for scarce resources and reproduce. Every biological advantage possible is used, and mutation provides this ammunition.

Who said anything about chance :/

Kay 17:

"Who is behind it" one of the most biased questions possible.

Organisms are said to be primed with the instinct to survive, that instinct coupled with the environment (includes predators and landscape) form a mechanism through which the fittest survive.

The fittest organisms beat poorer ones in this grand competition, to battle for scarce resources and reproduce. Every biological advantage possible is used, and mutation provides this ammunition.

Who said anything about chance :/

doesn't change anything. My next question would be the same why and what. But let us not derail this thread.

Ds, is calling a grown man a girl an insult in your village, as I don't get it? Girls are people too you know?

Ah, the usual 'no one has addressed this', when many, MANY have, it just isn't the answer that confirms his bias. It is work in progress, simple. Like many more aspects of science, like many other theories. But the head village clown thinks he knows better than the scientific community and figures he knows that evolution will never solve this. When its pointed he's speaking out of his as5, he whines.

In other words, nothing new to see hear. God of the gaps with bigger english. Ds and his posse already have ready made answers.

wiegraf: Ds, is calling a grown man a girl an insult in your village, as I don't get it? Girls are people too you know?

Ah, the usual 'no one has addressed this', when many, MANY have, it just isn't the answer that confirms his bias. It is work in progress, simple. Like many more aspects of science, like many other theories. But the head village clown thinks he knows better than the scientific community and figures he knows that evolution will never solve this. When its pointed he's speaking out of his as5, he whines.

In other words, nothing new to see hear. God of the gaps with bigger english. Ds and his posse already have ready made answers.

But the 'many, MANY answers' aren't sufficient, are they ?

@ds

I have read your links

Here is a favourable valid scientific explanation/subtheory from just one of the links you posted

Why, Then, Is Sexual Reproduction So Common?
The aforementioned points might lead one to conclude that sex is a losing enterprise. However, sex is incredibly common. Furthermore, even though asexual lineages do arise, they rarely persist for long periods of evolutionary time. Among flowering plants, for example, predominantly asexual lineages have arisen over 300 times, yet none of these lineages is very old. Furthermore, many species can reproduce both sexually and asexually, without the frequency of asexuality increasing and eliminating sexual reproduction altogether. What, then, prevents the spread of asexual reproduction?

The first generation of mathematical models examining the evolution of sex made several simplifying assumptions—namely, that selection is constant over time and space, that all individuals engage in sex at the same rate, and that populations are infinitely large. With such simplifying assumptions, selection remains the main evolutionary force at work, and sex and recombination serve mainly to break down the genetic associations built up by selection. So, it is perhaps no wonder that this early generation of models concluded that sex would evolve only under very restrictive conditions.

Subsequent models have relaxed these assumptions in a number of ways, attempting to better capture many of the complexities involved in real-world evolution. The results of these second-generation models are briefly summarized in the following sections.

Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Time
Current models indicate that sex evolves more readily when a species' environment changes rapidly. When the genetic associations built up by past selection are no longer favorable, sex and recombination can improve the fitness of offspring, thereby turning the recombination load into an advantage. One important source of environmental change is a shift in the community of interacting species, especially host and parasite species. This is the so-called "Red Queen" hypothesis for the evolution of sex, which refers to the need for a species to evolve as fast as it can just to keep apace of coevolving species. (The name of this hypothesis comes from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, in which Alice must run as fast as she can "just to stay in place." Increased allocation to sexual reproduction can evolve because of "Red Queen" interactions, but only if selection is strong enough to cause rapid switches in which gene combinations are favorable.

Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Space
Sex can also be favored when selection varies over space, as long as the genetic associations created by migration are locally disadvantageous. Whether this requirement is common in nature remains an open question.

Sex Evolves When Organisms Are Less Adapted to Their Environment
Organisms that reproduce both sexually and asexually tend to switch to sex under stressful conditions. Mathematical models have revealed that it is much easier for sex to evolve if individuals that are adapted to their environment reproduce asexually and less fit individuals reproduce sexually. In this way, well-adapted genotypes are not broken apart by recombination, but poorly adapted genotypes can be recombined to create new combinations in offspring.

Sex Evolves When Populations Are Finite


Figure 2
Figure Detail
Models that account for the fact that population sizes are finite have found that sex and recombination evolve much more readily. With a limited number of individuals in a population, selection erodes easily accessible variation, leaving only hidden variation (Figure 2). Recombination can then reveal this hidden variation, improving the response to selection. By improving the response to selection, genes that increase the frequency of sex become associated with fitter genotypes, which rise in frequency alongside them. Interestingly, the requirement that fitness surfaces exhibit weak and negative curvature is relaxed in populations of finite size; here, fitness surfaces may be uncurved or positively curved and still favor sex.
This last result is particularly interesting, because it suggests that August Weismann might have been right all along in arguing that sex evolved to generate variation. Modeling Weismann's hypothesis with infinitely large populations failed because variation is too easily generated by mutation and too easily maintained by selection within these populations. Altering this size-related assumption by modeling selection among a finite number of individuals reveals just how important sex and recombination are as processes that allow genes residing in different individuals to be brought together, thereby producing new genotypic combinations upon which selection can act.

There lies the advantages!

Kay 17: @ds

I have read your links

Here is a favourable valid scientific explanation/subtheory from just one of the links you posted


There lies the advantages!

None of my posers dwelt on advantages or disadvantages. Take my posers and show me the answers from the articles. Start with Posers 1 and 2.

Happy New year bro.

Many pages, many words yet no constructive arguments.
This thread does not belong in the religion section IMO.

Does telling lies about atheist make. You guys comfortable?

Lies? no. You live on faith bro. evolutiondidit even when the theory is not total.

libero00:


Interesting, the last part I mean, the other parts were pointless and too much for this fool to understand. What makes us shameless? I would like to know oh wonderful child of the invisible bully in the sky.

May the spirit of the flying spaghetti monster have mercy on you.

may the spirit of evolution keep you in the dark.

Chrisbenogor: Many pages, many words yet no constructive arguments.
This thread does not belong in the religion section IMO.

O I made mine. The responses were simply cowardly and puerile. How EVERY atheist on the thread can find reason not to ATTEMPT just one of my questions, says it all. Prefering instead to pretend that there is nothing to address. . . . Even while real life top grade scientists sweat over same posers. . . . Is just disgusting.

As far as I can tell, there is no difference between the religionist and the atheist in terms of fear of loss of worldview and duplicity in defending stark nonsense.

Deep Sight:

O I made mine. The responses were simply cowardly and puerile. How EVERY atheist on the thread can find reason not to ATTEMPT just one of my questions, says it all. Prefering instead to pretend that there is nothing to address. . . . Even while real life top grade scientists sweat over same posers. . . . Is just disgusting.

As far as I can tell, there is no difference between the religionist and the atheist in terms of fear of loss of worldview and duplicity in defending stark nonsense.

Sighs,
You know I stopped commenting often because I find that people tend to post to score brownie points instead of actually having interesting conversations. TBH I really do not know much about the ToE I use these threads to try and learn, but when I find you guys squabbling instead of having intelligent discussions its a great turn off.

I also struggle to see how this is a religious issue, the spin this thread has taken IMO is more scientific than religious, I think this thread misses a vital link of how does this all connect to religion? As a scientifc discourse it does sure make for interesting discussion. It seriously however needs that religious bench marking if it is to remain here.

DS,
Is this the evolution of sexes as a scientific discussion? If it is as connected to religion could you kindly make that connection clearer? Because I am struggling hard to see the need for all the e-ink wasted in all these pages. Science has a billion and one aspects of this planet it has not yet fully explained, many aspects it is still working on, many aspects that have been refined day in and out. Sometimes I wonder what your real aim is, I wonder what you are suggesting we do in the face that we have challenges in responding to aspects that our theory cannot explain (if that's really the case).

You have said continuously that you accept parts of the theory and you feel the others are suspect, no problem. Is it possible for you using the scientific method to first show why it is wrong, and then what you think is correct. I think for the best part you are wary of going down the path of proposing what you think is the answer.




PS:
Is it ever possible to have a discussion here? Instead of accusations and counter accusations? I guess not. sighs
Happy new year Sir.

Deep Sight:

The reason I think it is a glaring sore thumb, and the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena: and that is the real reason that evolutionists struggle in such wild confusion to force these phenomena under the trappings of evolutionary theory even when the principles of evolution have no bearing on them!

For your deep thinking please:

1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

Without reproduction, there can be no evolution as under the theory of natural selection. Also note that one of the major characteristics of life is reproduction.

That being said, an explanation of posers 1 and 2 cannot be derived with the principles of ToE, however a theory (for the emergence of life) should overlap with ToE, just as scientific theories interconnect to create a larger coherent picture.

Is this addressed to the blind ?

Kay 17:

Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Advantage in man's sex, advantage in the sex of monkeys, dongs, goats, insects, birds, fishes, reptiles, crocodiles, hippos and chimpanzees. All male and female.

this evolution is so so so very very very very practical and intelligent with exceptional vision.

Kay 17:
and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life.

.

^^^, yeah True!

Go tell that ^ to the blind.

Only a blind man that cant see can accept such.

But for those that can see, i mean realy see and comprehend what he sees in his environt, the obvious is glarering.

Have a nice day Key 17

Kay 17:

Deepsight, you are jumping the gun here.

Those explanations and theoretical models are scientifically valid, and bear consistency with the overall theory of evolution and diversity of life. The evolution of sexes must have been an advantage, and to ward against deletrious mutations.

Same as the flexibility and frequency of sex change amongst some species. Some species go as far parthenogenesis. The aim is the same, furtherance of life.

What sort of advantage?