₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: People like Deepsight are very dangerous to humanity

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ! ! ! !



Indeed!

Logicboy03: People like Deepsight are very dangerous to humanity- Spreading misinformation packaged with big words.

Deepsight is claiming that the theory of evolution is flawed because it cant fully explain the evolution of sexual reproduction and mammary glands.


First and foremost, when the theory of evolution was proposed by Darwin, the theory couldnt explain many aspects of Genetics which it can do now. Evolution at Darwin's could not explain the evolution of morality and animal behaviour/psychology (but evolution explains it now). The point here is threefold;

1) The theory of evolution is centered on the change in the characteristics of living organisms over successive generations- and in that sense evolution is a well tested and tried scientific theory. It is solid.

2) The theory of evolution encompasses a lot of areas. It is a very wide subject that goes around- Anatomy, psychology, sociology, paleontology and so many areas of "organic" science. It explains one million things about life but there are also a million things about life that we do not understand. Picking an issue and claiming that evolution can not explain it does not mean that the theory is false or flawed. Information and research about evolution keeps on growing and making new advances.

It still misses you that I subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, doesn't it. Yeah, I know, for one with a pea sized brain such as yours, it might be hard to understand that a man may accept a theory and yet question aspects of it. Or even find it inchoate, as I do. And as it no doubt is.

3) The mammary gland puzzle and other points raised would still be explained by evolution in the long run. This just like how evolution was before it could explain some areas of genetics.

Oh, confident, are we?

Directly addressing Deepsight's folly on the mammary gland puzzle and evolution of sexual reproduction

1) Mammary Glands
-First of all, there are already theories on how mammary glands evolved and lactation based on the comparison of living mammals
-Second of all, mammary glands do not fossilize well and so, it makes finding out the evolutionary process of them difficult. I dont know whether you want scientists to do some kind of magic to explain them

These are basic facts already noted. However the core question misses you: the development of such glands at all: in tandem with the needs of infants delivered by the reproductive process. This is much the same way that I (and others) question the development of the female reproductive system simultaneously with the development of the male system, in such a complimentary fashion that both work in the manner that they do, from the act of s.ex up till conception, pregnancy and delivery. Post-delivery, the formed mammary glands and their role thereafter builds on this question - exactly how this separate "evolution" took place on such a complimentary scale for two se.xes of the same species. You should think on that: and it is an issue also elaborated on in the last article I posted, try and read it.

-thirdly, the fact remains that human and animals evolved despite the lack of fossil evidence and consensus on the evolution of the mammary glands

This is beginning to sound dogmatic. In other words, you will always accept and insist in evolution no matter what facts or flaws may emerge.

2) Sexual reproduction
-As with the mammary glands, there are existing theories on the evolution of sexual reproduction.

This is just lazy.

Please go and read the problems and then come back.

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

And then cogitate on each of my 12 questions - starting with the first two ones only please!

The things that pains me most is the ignorance shown by Deepsight and his bunch of anti-intellectual theists.

You have no idea what a source of heart-break and grief your perennial st.upidity and vacancy is to me, son.

They expect science to explain everything and when it doesnt, it is flawed.

Oh no: but I certainly expect logic and sense: leaps and assumptions are very unscientific - especially when they transcend any magic that may be expected of myth, legend and religion.

Did Deepsight read in the articles that since the evolution of mammary glands and sexual reproduction, evolution is flawed? No, he didnt read that but he went on to claim some victory over evolution!

Guess what Deepsight? The evolution of the human brain is also not easily explainable. There are theories but no consensus. We dnt know everything about the brain. This doesnt mean that evolution is flawed. It only means that scientists are still researching and there is always more iinformation to be added to the subject of evolution.

Lol. You are yet to begin son.

We do not say that the fact that everything is not known yet is a problem. We point out specific contradictions and frank impossibilities which show that certain assumptions within the scientific community are not sound.

Chrisbenogor: You know sometimes its easy to misunderstand you. I get what you are saying, the theory in my opinion is Man's best attempt so far at explaining the fun fare that goes on around us. However saying not fully understanding why or how "very clearly shows there is a significant compelling factor at work" without providing any better scientific explanations, makes your position worse than that which you are in contention with IMO.

Sometimes we cannot explain somethings, Prince Rupert's drops comes to mind here (with really high speed cameras one can actually see the crack propagation now coooool stuff ). It just does not mean that something Significant, a more compelling factor is at work.

Yes you are on point: but please note that I am not stating that once some aspect cannot be understood, then my conclusion succeeds. No - I am rather contending that certain critical impossibilities show conclusively that the very principles of the theory do not deal with certain critical facets of the matter AT ALL - thus showing that other factors must be at play. This is what I seek to say.

rationalmind: While I appreciate your input and your conviction, we only need honest people on these thread. We don't need any one to twist any thing here.

Read that verse again, it said the heaven and the earth were parted. That's scientific ignorance from Allah. Heaven is not separate from the earth. Heaven(sky) is inside the earth.

Like I said, only honest people are welcome on this thread. We don't need any twists and re-interpretations. Thank you

Edit: I just noticed the universe you put in brackets after earth. When does earth start being the universe. Did you do geography in school? Earth is a planet on its own in the universe. Earth does not equal universe.

I think the Muslim poster has a more plausible interpretation that you do. "Heavens" certainly does not mean the earth's atmospheric sky in that context. It refers to celestial bodies, and given that it says they were joined together (singularity) before being torn apart (big-bang /expansion) this would, as the Muslim poster says, tie in quite nicely with as good an explanation of the origin of the universe as could be expected to have been given to such primitive men, no?

Logicboy03: 6 month old baby? Not understood? Not needed?

You do realise that the same God says that people perish without knowledge?

Furthermore, are you seriously arguing that the brains of human beings now are bigger or more functional than those of the people in the biblical times? So are you arguing that such a powerful God could not use his power to make humans of the biblical times to understand evolution and to understand their world a little bit better?

How can knowledge of your environment be useless (not needed)?

That's why I said such "technical" explanations were not needed.

rationalmind: While you raised some good points, I'll still like you to remember religious books were never written solely for people who lived when it was written. It was supposedly written for everyone including generations of people yet unborn. It wouldn't matter whether the people then could understand it or not, what would matter is that, people sometime later will come to understand it and as such it should still had been written.

Oh no, not at all, nothing could be further from the truth.

1. If people didn't understand the writings at that time, they would have been long discarded and lost like many others and would have never made it to this day in the first place.

2. The true needs of mankind up till today are addressed in basic teachings of harmony within many such scriptures. Those still remain the foundations of a society which are needed for every other progress.

Uyi Iredia: Off-point. He doesn't need knowledge of the ddtails you mention. Darwin had way less than that and yet his theory gained acceptance.

Aside from the fact that he merely mentioned common words and factors to the discussion without in anyway showing how such answer or address the conundrum of the origin of sexes and sexxual reproduction.

He therefore said nothing: and such a post would only serve to delude the ignorant and chronically lazy.

Chrisbenogor: DS,
So lets say its not been solved, that would mean you pointing out the already obvious i.e it has not been fully solved beyond doubt. Then what? Do you have a better explanation? Does this make the ToE simply go away?

No, it does not make the ToE go away: I have repeatedly stated that I believe in evolution.

What is made abundantly clear with such cardinal problems and insufficiencies in the theory, is that it is altogether inchoate as an explanation for the existence and variation of species: and very clearly shows that there is a far more significant compelling factor at work other than that advanced by the theory.

As the article above is too long to be posted in entirety without being banned by the spambot, I post the conclusion.

Conclusion

Lewis Thomas, the highly regarded medical doctor who served for many years as the president and chancellor of the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, was unable to contain either his enthusiasm or his praise for the system we know as “sexual reproduction.” In his book, The Medusa and the Snail, he wrote about the “miracle” of how one sperm cell forms with one egg cell to produce the cell we know as a zygote, which, nine months later, will become a newborn human being. He concluded:

‘The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.’[48]

Dr. Thomas’ money is perfectly safe. No one has been able to explain—from an evolutionary viewpoint—the origin of sex, the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself a marvel of design). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Evolutionary theorists ask us to believe that random, chance occurrences brought about this marvelously interdependent process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place via meiosis, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to rejoin the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn. The idea that all of this “just evolved” is unworthy of consideration or acceptance, especially in light of the evidence now at hand.

The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

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

Do make sure to go through the whole article! It is truly worthy reading!



Oh, and here is the RESUME of the writers:

Brad Harrub is a graduate of Kentucky Wesleyan College, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who’s Who Among Scientists and Researchers. He was an invited speaker to the 2003 International Conference on Creationism. He currently serves as the Director of Scientific Information at Apologetics Press, and as associate editor of Reason & Revelation.

Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he taught for several years. While at Texas A&M, he served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. Currently, Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Apologetics Press and editor of Reason & Revelation.

These gentlemen are Phd holders in Neurobiology and Microbiology.

And they write and ask questions articulated on same posers as mine.

Laugh away.

Evolutionary Theories On Gender
And Sexual Reproduction

© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Abstract

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today. Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

Introduction

Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.

The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]

The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of “The Ultimate Existential Absurdity”):

‘Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, “isn’t it obvious?” Joking apart, it is far from obvious.... Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists.

The full and thorough work is here:

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

And this is the issue that people above dare wave aside with the pathetic appeals above. . . the same issue!

Lol. Just Lol.

- - - > And another article for you (go through all six short pages) - - - > Chuck full of scientific propositions (tested ones) in answer to my inquiries.

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

Assignment: go through it and identify which propositions answer my questions.

Simple.

Mr Troll: ^^^

Butthurt!


Seriously though, Don't you really see how so very similar your 'poser' is to religious goddidits? Is it because yours is more eloquently written?

E.g Scientists are still wondering why we have 2 hands instead of say, 5 and how it fits into the theory of evolution and then the oh so wonderful Deepsight comes along and tells them..."well, you can never know because goddidit!"

Sounds eerily like Maclantunji to me

Now I would conclude that you are just joking about.

My questions are clear for any one who is serious. Either address them in terms of the ToE, or carry on the empty party of clueless whining which has been the only thing offered by all you all-so-enlightened-atheists here.

Nothing more. What is glaring, particularly from your infantile summation, is that you do not even have the capacity to sit down, read and comprehend the issues raised. It's patently beyond you. One good option would be to just leave it alone. Think on that.

PS:

In fact, let me help you do your home work. Read up on answers available in science:

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

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

Now, go through these links and extract answers to my posers for me, if you will.

You can start with this, from the first link:

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled species.[1][41][50][51] Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.
Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner.

You might want to start by looking at that statement in bold in the above, and wondering where that need comes from, in light of just my first posers alone:

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.

Hmmmm, Einstein?

rationalmind: Here is where the question lies, let's even agree micro-evolution is true and macro is wrong and that God started the Big-Bang, how come there is no single mention of evolution in all religious books? How come there is no single mention of the big-bang in religious books (except some very pathetic twists of quranic verses)?

That could very sensibly be because -

1. Such technical explanations were not needed

2. Such technical explanations would not have been understood

Do you teach your 6 month old baby Further Maths?

God had all the time to talk about slavery, genocide, sacrifices, idolatory but couldn't simply talk about evolution and the big-bang.

As stated above, it would have been ridiculous at that stage in human development to discuss such things as evolution and the big-bang. As for the slavery, genocide, sacrifices, et all, I have no defense for such barbarities and I condemn the notion of God situated in scripture which advanced such things.

If history is anything to go by, it is that God/Allah has done or said nothing of note as regards earth and life forms only to promise fantasies of heaven.

If it is the view of the theist that God created him into this world, what will be so absurd in believing that the said creator could take him to another world?

Its on the basis of the above I'll always cast my lot with science despite the presence of dark n grey areas and will encourage everyone to do so.

Do bear in mind that being scientific and being religious (or spiritual) are not mutually exclusive. Indeed you "science-worshippers" should have some healthy respect for the fact that a good number of the more important scientific theorems were actually propounded by very religious scientists.

Such as this same Big-Bang you speak about.

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the Universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[39][40] Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the Universe might be expanding in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein at that time.[41] In 1924 Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory#Development

Yes, a Catholic Priest. The very same man you mentioned.

So please, y'all need to get off your high horses.

God/Allah, Bible/Quran has always never been there when we need them the most.

You needed them the most when you were completely ignorant, and they helped keep you somewhat sane, yes they did.

Mr Troll: Why is the sky blue? What is the evolutionary impetus for the sky being blue?


If you cannot answer it in light of the theory of evolution...

I say...Goddidit!

Mr Troll: Sometimes I wonder, is it that Deepsight accepts the theory of evolution but also believes that somewhere along the line, God throws in some magic wherever the evolutionary train seemed to have stuck up?

For example, after the first single celled organisms must have evolved and couldn't form into different sexes, God must have done some abracadabra and divided them into different sexes and then withdrew into the background until some other hiccup happens, say when the brain's turn must have come around. Impressive, I must admit.

Intelligent design by a not so perfect Mind...oh wait!

wiegraf: I tire. So confidently spouting nonsense. Described so well by evil brain I will add.

This is one of the more articulate, eloquent 'goddidits' around. I agree some sort of recognition is merited. I put it we recognize Oga ds, as opposed to josh, as doing for fairy tales what Einstein did for science. He's far more worthy of that respect than the competition

I have become accustomed to the signature daftness of you both, so carry on playing with your toys, dimwits. Neither Evil Brain nor Plaetton have addressed a single issue: and mind you this is a still very controversial scientific issue in scientific circles: and I have enunciated my reasons for that controversy quite clearly and not a single one of the posers are touched on by any poster here, least of all the deluded Evil Brain.

Of course I would never have waited up for you two re.tarded prats.

mazaje: Do you believe that the bible contains the words of the creator of the universe?. . .

I can only say that the bible certainly contains grave existential wisdom and depth, and is highly instructive for spiritual development in many ways. Nonetheless it is also representative of the many deep seated cultural and ethnic prejudices, superstitions, barbarisms and intolerance of its writers.

What do you mean by the bible not representing the whole of scripture?. . .

You know very well the history of the compilation of the bible in that regard.

texanomaly: I am a newbie. Can you drop a link or two for me? I am curious about the origins of your way of thinking.

Really to be honest, I don't think it is necessary to refer to old threads, for two reasons. One, there are too many of them on too many different topics, and two: they may not be particularly useful in light of the fact that you already express a firm belief in God.

How did you come to these conclusions? Christianity claims growth and enlightenment from Christ’s teachings. Atheism claims freedom from superstition, fear and irrational thought. (To Atheist: This is my understanding. I am not afraid of correction.) Do you gain any semblance of peace or enlightenment from your stance? Your way of thinking is thought provoking. Dose it create opportunity for growth? Is it a discipline that can be studied to gain further knowledge?

Well the pursuit of Truth has been a life long passion since I was a child. It has led me through a labyrinth of religions and philosophies from around the globe. As such I have been orthodox christian, Jehovah's witness, Buddhist enthusiast, Islamic reader and enthusiast, studied such works as the Grail Message, and Confucian, Taoist and Hindu teachings, studied with the Rosicrucian Order, been agnostic, and even briefly atheist. While these varied excursions have been greatly enlightening for me, I am not certain that they are useful or necessary for everyone. The pursuit of truth is necessary for this life: but each will find his or her way within the trajectory of life.

Today, I am quite settled, and for a long time too, as a believer in the existence of God and purpose in creation. I believe that the earth is a school, where souls come to learn and improve their spiritual strength, consciousness and enlightenment. I believe in Karma.

What is your stance on religion?

For a long time I was a great antagonist of religion, as you will see in many of my older posts, and went to great lengths to criticize and deconstruct most religious tenets which I saw as false and absurd. I no longer believe that this is necessary or even wise, except where the most extreme and harmful religious practices are concerned. I now understand that religion plays a critical part in the spiritual and social evolution of man, and that many people still need its crutches to understand and apprehend their world, and make sense of their existence. This is not something to begrudge anybody, so long as it is benign, and so long as it is not laced with unreasonable prejudices and unreasonable intolerance. Indeed there are many core benefits for mankind within religion, even though I feel that the truly liberated and developed spirit does not need it's crutches and its limitations.

In terms of particular discipline, I only seek to practice love of all mankind and nature, I commune with my God quietly by myself, and I believe very strongly in charity, fostering help, and avoiding all forms of ill will or negativity whatsoever.

Deep meditation on existential reality is also an abiding habit and obsession, but not one I would recommend for anyone, for it can lead to existential distraction. Living a wholesome, passionate and loving life with goals towards the improvement of humanity as a whole is thus, in my mind, a more simple and necessary target for everyone.

What is your stance on the Bible?

A grand and profound collection it no doubt is, and I still retain my copy amongst many other scriptures of other religions and walks of life. However it is a fact that the bible has been significantly tampered with, does not represent the whole of scripture, and is by no means strictly without error.

plaetton: Shut up Josh, you slowpoke.
This topic is way above your mental level.
There is no way I could possible address you on any issue regarding biological evolution. It would be too embarrassing for me.
That is the painful price one pays for being on the religilous section.

This is very arrogant and sanctimonious for one who has tossed about ideas he clearly cannot defend and one whose only recourse is to recommend libraries!

The ad hominem is unbecoming of you and you should be able to see his simple point for what it is and respond appropriately.

Your turn out on this thread has been disgraceful so far.

I hope you remedy that and quit referring people to libraries or flinging ad hominems.

Address the questions.

plaetton: If the answer does not fit your preferred use of words, it is then invalid , right?.
Nonsense.

Are you actually pretending to want to learn something here, or to prove something.
What exactly about evolution do you want to prove on Nl , and to whom?
I think you are in love with your own verbosity.

It's like you are holding a gun and shouting " teach me , make understand evolution or the I will shoot the whole theory dead".
And just like your previous dubious posers, you are acting for an unformed jury.

Go to school friend and stop this nonsense.
Anyone who does not understand evolution should go and study it. Simple.

Evilbrain simply and clearly highlighted how l comically ignorant you are about this very subject.

If you are sincere, your posers are valid.
Go and find the answers, and then come back and tell us , with scientific facts, which aspects you are in disagreement with.

Lol. You have nothing to say. Its a shame you would bring up unverified nonsensical propositions and run away, desperately red eyed and fearful, to defend them. Your turn out is a disgrace.

And Evil Brain didn't say jack, save make st.upid and dim witted assumptions about me being born again, and such other twoddle. This from him -

Evil Brain: Without having a clue about the biomechanics of sëxual reproduction and the analogous, but massively different process of bacterial conjugation. Without knowing how sëx affects the rate of appearance, competition and combination of mutant genes within a population. Without understanding the differences in DNA and RNA biochemistry in monerans, archeans and eukaryotes. Without doing any sort of comparative molecular genetics study. Without even knowing what sëx is at its most basic level, this guy has managed to debunk everything we know about the science of sexual reproduction.

- - - Did not address a single question. He only asked uselessly if I was acquainted with all that. Such a useless rhetorical question, is not an argument of any sort, and does nothing to address my questions.

Redlyn: All this is applicable to animals no?
"Experience is only open to a person". Does that mean animals are 'persons' because it is obvious they hear, see, feel and experience.
I must be slow and low on coffee because somehow I am failing to see the point of this thread.

Yes, it would mean that they are animal personalities and therewith have experience.

aManFromMars: Cool. My next question is would you be able to think after you're dead?

Yes, but not in a material way, as I would have left the material plane and my material faculties. I would apprehend things with spiritual faculties, and at a spiritual dimension of existence.

When you understand that I am a person, you cannot limit me to my body's functions in the material plane.

plaetton: Show you what?
Reproductive efficiency is the evolutionary impetus for the division of the sexes.

This is as lazy, disgraceful and escapist an answer as you could have inveigled.

Please address my questions and show how the question of reproductive efficiency would even have arisen at all - in the specific light of each question.

Secondly, you will not get off lightly on your talk about polarity. Please show me any scientific paper or conclusion anywhere whatsoever, rendering such polarity as being (a) responsible for the existence of male and female sexes in an evolutionary context (b) being part of any evolutionary science on development of se.xual organs as distinct between male and female.

You cannot escape with vague postulations even while you continue to accuse others of such leaps of logic and imagination sir.

Answer me.

plaetton: These qualities were already embedded in the first proto-cells.
Over time, and through who knows how many processes, the cells divided into polar opposites , we assume, for reproductive efficiency.

I cannot get over this celestial leap.

And he talks about leaps in logic.

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/346/831.full

Please show me how this leads to evolutionary impetus for the development of separate sexes as per my questions.

Thank you.

plaetton: Ha ha.
My dear friend, with all sincerity,
I wish deep thinking was something I could lend to you, even for a short while.
I do not mean that as an insult. I know you are thinker, a respected one here on Nl and I am sure outside.

Sexual differentiation is a simplematter of polarity.
A negatively charged object will obviously behave different than a positively charged object.

Polarity is innate in energy.
Where there is energy, there is polar differentials or differentiation.
These qualities were already embedded in the first proto-cells.
Over time, and through who knows how many processes, the cells divided into polar opposites , we assume, for reproductive efficiency.
The advantages of sexual reproduction over non-sexual reproduction are not in dispute.

These are my own words with what I know.
Read up on it.

Glibly said without a touch on the evolutionary impetus for such differentiation within the same species. And of course with the shocking assumption that different polarities lead to different se.xualities - and the attendant implications in anatomy? Would you be surprised if I were to show you that this is nowhere proven to be the case? Would you be ready to state which opposites emerged into which sexes?

You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, man.

Please answer my 12 questions up there, using the above quote of yours.

Evil Brain: In a perverse sort of way, its hard not to admire the way born again types talk.

First off, loser, I am no "born again" - - - and the fact that you would make such an assumption just shows the limits of your mind. You clearly cannot conceive of the existence of any non religious person who has problems with the Theory of Evolution. Some exposure you have then! Poof!

FYI, I am not even remotely religious. I have not subscribed to any religion for over 17 years now. What's more, if you had bothered to read even this thread, you would have noted that I am very much on record on this board as believing in evolution. But of course, such critique from one who accepts the basic ideas of evolution, is obviously beyond your dim witted arrsse.

The way they can make bold, sweeping statements from a position of near total ignorance. I mean, deep sight read a single wikipedia (lol!) article, scratched his head for a few seconds, then concluded that he could overturn the accumulated hundreds of years worth of work done by far smarter people who have dedicated their lives to studying living things in the wild and in the lab.

And of course, you were too daft to recognise that this is a question I have raised before - as I clearly stated so - and not a result of " reading one wikipedia article and scratching my head.

For your information, you sanguine bovine re.tard, the questions raised are, and remain subjects of deep scientific controversy within the scientific community, and no resolved answers to those questions are available anywhere on this planet, you filthy remnant of the faeces of an orangutan.

Do not dare make st.upid presuppositions with me: you will have no traction if you assume that mere anti-religionism is sufficient to ground and establish your intellect.

All the hundreds of grey haired PhDs who've been poring over every published scientific paper looking for holes and flaws couldn't do what deep sight did with just a few minutes and a little wiki reading.

Without having a clue about the biomechanics of sexual reproduction and the analogous, but massively different process of bacterial conjugation. Without knowing how sëx affects the rate of appearance, competition and combination of mutant genes within a population. Without understanding the differences in DNA and RNA biochemistry in monerans, archeans and eukaryotes. Without doing any sort of comparative molecular genetics study. Without even knowing what sëx is at the most basic level, this guy has managed to debunk everything we know about the science of sexual reproduction.

DeepSight has the confidence of a näked madman catwalking down the street. I wouldn't want to switch places with him, but I'm sure it must feel good!

Now STFU and provide me responses to these questions - - - >

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.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

Olodo.

Lol. What a satisfactory response. He asks me to visit a library.

Comedian.

How do you know I havent done so already, and therein had these questions unresolved.

O teacher, if you say there are scientific answers, do me a loving brotherly favor and shew them unto me, sir.

What misses you, is that these are firm logical posers that rather show the phenomena to be outside the purview of evolution ab initio.

Reflect:

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

That an evolutionary process would work on the SAME species to produce the female systems in some and the male systems in the other, complimentary for the purpose of reproduction, is inconceivable in light of the red above.

FINISHER!

texanomaly: I am a newbie. Can you drop a link or two for me? I am curious about the origins of your way of thinking. How did you come to these conclusions? Christianity claims growth and enlightenment from Christ’s teachings. Atheism claims freedom from superstition, fear and irrational thought. (To Atheist: This is my understanding. I am not afraid of correction.) Do you gain any semblance of peace or enlightenment from your stance? Your way of thinking is thought provoking. Dose it create opportunity for growth? Is it a discipline that can be studied to gain further knowledge? What is your stance on religion? What is your stance on the Bible? These are a few of the questions I have. Please drop links and comments accordingly. If you will. Pease and thank you.

Thanks for your inquiries my dear, and don't worry yourself with the frustrated duo above, lol.

I will come back in a bit with a few comments on yours.

Cheers.

plaetton: Even if controversial, as you put it, have you educated yourself sufficiently on why it is controversial, or are you just picking the side that validates your worldview?

Wikipaedia does not a scientific education make.

rationalmind: Deepsight is partially right on this. When I tried reading on the topic, I discovered it is still a widely disputed aspect of evolution.

What I however don't agree with is deepsights conclusion that



How can you conclude it cannot be addressed by evolution because it hasn't been addressed by evolution and why are you so quick to jump on those dark areas to arrive at conclusions such as the above.

You can as well publish a journal on this code of existential forms that governs the appearance and existence of forms and win yourself the nobel.

Platteon was also spot on in most of his observations. The human mind is generally wired to accept easy solutions such as the one deepsight posited. You don't have to explain anything, just posit that something, somewhere is behind it and the case is "settled".

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.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What accounts for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (admittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on account of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

^^^ You still havent said jack and I am 100 per cent you either did not read the extracts in my OP, or deliberately glossed over them.

Those questions are sources of confusion and controversy even in scientific circles, and only controversial speculations on the answers exist, and have been proferred. There are no scientific explanations resolved. And yet you dare compare these to resolved cast-in-stone science such as computer science or planetary measurements. You are too funny. And too ignorant. Go educate your ignorance on this one.

plaetton: Well sir, I and the whole world have affirmed, all the technological achievements and breakthroughs have affirmed over and over again, that we would rather throw in our lot with science rather than intuitors, prophets and all other mad men who create gods in their minds.

And besides, you are on record as saying that you ACCEPT some forms of evolution.
That , my friend, show how confused you are about the little knowledge you have on the subject.

That is no confusion: I am proud to say that I believe that is the hallmark of curiosity, reason, and an inquiring mind. Now you are here effectively stating that you have neither the inclination, nor the aptitude and capacity to question science. The day that becomes true of me, I will commit suicide.

Frankly, your statement infers that all scientific propositions should be wholly accepted without question. A lazier and sadder commentary on any mind, I could not possibly contrive. Effectively, accepting evolution renders that one should not question any aspect of it? Wow. Some scholar!

Look, please if you have nothing to offer here other than lazy non-critical worship of science, there is no need for any discussion with you.

^^^ You still have said jack sh1t man.

You are just revealing the deep ignorance, and even fear, that makes ignoramuses accept whatsoever proceeds from the mouth of the scientist.

If you will care to stop and do some thinking, you will quickly see that you have been sold a huge dummy here, and that evolution cannot account for the se.xes, and for se.xual reproduction. You can have a look around and do some light reading to boot.

Other than that, you have said one big fat nothing on the subject.

And its your ignorance that is on show here, simple.

And no, you did not address this poser in the prior thread. Go back and read what you wrote, and if you have any integrity, you will be red with horrified shame and embarrassment at yourself, sir.

Kay 17: ^^
Deepsight, I think you are hold misconceptions about the big ban.g. The universe is said to have proceeded from a hot dense state -- a singularity. The cause of the Universe is this singularity

And it just proceeded, abracadabra! No?

And for how long that hot dense state had existed, we do not know. And why it did not "proceed" before then, or after then, but only then.

mazaje: I consider your definition of god to be lacking in substance on many fronts. . .

That's not a problem. We can talk through it.

God is oneness of infinity?. . .

I have explained in the past that this simply means that God is ONE and INFINITE.

You could think of it as being ONE compound being or element, which is eternal, and holds infinite potentials of existence.

Compound of self existent laws,

That the sum of all self-existent laws and realities is what God is.

sum of all time,

Eternity.

infinite mind?. . .

Carrying infinite potentials of existence.