User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:51:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Sigh, I guess I'm in. I'm just going to watch this thread burn to the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:51:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Cellar dwellers and neckbeards need evolution to be true. Cause sex ain't happenin any time soon
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:52:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's not entirely wrong, take a look at the Crocs  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is off topic but I know a guy that doesn't believe dinosaurs ever existed. Says that fossils have always been fakes. Any real giant bones found were actually those of giant prehistoric humans. And they had giant guns. I am not joking. I know of a guy that thinks knows there are dinosaurs still roaming around Afrika. He's not entirely wrong, take a look at the Crocs If he can produce a Crocloceratops I'll be impressed as hell, until then...   |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:53:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Cause pussy feels good?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:55:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Copy pasta evolution thread answer:
A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them. Current hypotheses suggest that asexual reproduction may have short term benefits when rapid population growth is important or in stable environments, while sexual reproduction offers a net advantage by allowing more rapid generation of genetic diversity, allowing adaptation to changing environments. Developmental constraints may underlie why few animals have relinquished sexual reproduction completely in their life-cycles. Another constraint on switching from sexual to asexual reproduction would be the concomitant loss of meiosis and the protective recombinational repair of DNA damage afforded as one function of meiosis. Also this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 7:57:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place Here, I'll give you an answer without insulting you. It's thought that in the time of single-celled organisms, very large cells were good at finding and storing energy, while small cells were quick and very motile. Thus, the two would find each other easily, and performed genetic conjugation (as is witnessed even today in unicellular organisms) in order to "shuffle" their genes and enhance their survival. This is thought to be the primitive origin of sperm and egg cells. BTW Richard Dawkins is a clown and an agitator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:01:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Yeah?
Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:01:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
you get 50% of your genes from one parent and the other 50% from the other parent. wouldn't we have asexual reproduction for a more perfect evolution? Who needs perfect evolution when there's pussy to be had? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:01:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hey just be glad that humans don't use traumatic insemination. shit's fucked up. I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about,but I've seen some stuff on the internet that sounds like that.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:01:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Maybe wanting to bang each other encourages the propagation of the species.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:01:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have"  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have" Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution!    I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:03:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not among unicellular organisms. Some of them can reproduce "sexually" by sharing packets of genes, or asexually, and often switch back and forth depending on the donditions. Hell, there are even some multi-cellular organisms that do this. Sharing genes has been around a long, long time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Genticing mutations. Look at lemurs A mutation affects one individual at a time Sexual reproduction requires two individuals For a mutation to convert a species or population from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would be far too big of a jump Some of them can reproduce "sexually" by sharing packets of genes, or asexually, and often switch back and forth depending on the donditions. Hell, there are even some multi-cellular organisms that do this. Sharing genes has been around a long, long time. According to wikipedia--a scholarly source if I've ever seen one--a boa constrictor has done this. And by this, I mean both sexual and asexual reproduction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:03:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It continues because fucking is fun. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:04:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he can produce a Crocloceratops I'll be impressed as hell, until then... http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y404/fvlminata/enLoz7_zpsyv7ygovu.gif
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is off topic but I know a guy that doesn't believe dinosaurs ever existed. Says that fossils have always been fakes. Any real giant bones found were actually those of giant prehistoric humans. And they had giant guns. I am not joking. I know of a guy that thinks knows there are dinosaurs still roaming around Afrika. He's not entirely wrong, take a look at the Crocs
If he can produce a Crocloceratops I'll be impressed as hell, until then... http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y404/fvlminata/enLoz7_zpsyv7ygovu.gif
This is the closest thing we have right now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:07:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Because you can't literally go fuck yourselve.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:09:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to wikipedia--a scholarly source if I've ever seen one--a boa constrictor has done this. And by this, I mean both sexual and asexual reproduction. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Genticing mutations. Look at lemurs A mutation affects one individual at a time Sexual reproduction requires two individuals For a mutation to convert a species or population from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would be far too big of a jump Some of them can reproduce "sexually" by sharing packets of genes, or asexually, and often switch back and forth depending on the donditions. Hell, there are even some multi-cellular organisms that do this. Sharing genes has been around a long, long time. According to wikipedia--a scholarly source if I've ever seen one--a boa constrictor has done this. And by this, I mean both sexual and asexual reproduction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:10:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
you get 50% of your genes from one parent and the other 50% from the other parent. wouldn't we have asexual reproduction for a more perfect evolution? because mixing the DNA of two individuals results in more bio diversity within the species. but that is probably because life evolved the way it did, and not because that is the only way. Plenty of budding species out there too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:12:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I took these pics a while back at my local library. Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution communist propaganda! http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have" Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution communist propaganda! http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:14:27 PM EDT
[#19]
In Asexual reproduction the offspring receives every gene mutation from the parent, booth good and bad. It works well in simple organisms w/ short generational turnovers. In such organisms their is little time for environmental degradation of the DNA to take place and the the structures are simpler w/ less likelihood of the defects stacking. In more complex organisms sexual reproduction reduces the likelihood of inheriting a bad mutation by 50% per a generation. In complex organisms, Asexual reproduction would work like extreme inbreeding leading to increased genetic defects.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:15:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's fun? If it were boring and asexual, it would eventually stop occurring and then what? nothing but lesbians, Gheays and other Non-Breeders and the end is Nigh. Reproduction feels great for a reason. if it didn't, we wouldn't do it. Get out of the basement, meet a person of the opposite sex, and have Consensual sex with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:16:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A mutation affects one individual at a time Sexual reproduction requires two individuals For a mutation to convert a species or population from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would be far too big of a jump Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Genticing mutations. Look at lemurs A mutation affects one individual at a time Sexual reproduction requires two individuals For a mutation to convert a species or population from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would be far too big of a jump Your assertion is that the mutation can only happen once in one individual ever. If that were the case, any number.of genetic mutations we see in our own species would only happen once. There are plenty of Down's syndrome and Alzheimer patients around last I checked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:16:20 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:16:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen the documentary Jurassic park. Raptors can do it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Genticing mutations. Look at lemurs A mutation affects one individual at a time Sexual reproduction requires two individuals For a mutation to convert a species or population from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction would be far too big of a jump Some of them can reproduce "sexually" by sharing packets of genes, or asexually, and often switch back and forth depending on the donditions. Hell, there are even some multi-cellular organisms that do this. Sharing genes has been around a long, long time. According to wikipedia--a scholarly source if I've ever seen one--a boa constrictor has done this. And by this, I mean both sexual and asexual reproduction.
Life...uh...finds a way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:18:24 PM EDT
[#24]
So if you don't wash your belly button will you get pregnant?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:18:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: because mixing the DNA of two individuals results in more bio diversity. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: you get 50% of your genes from one parent and the other 50% from the other parent. wouldn't we have asexual reproduction for a more perfect evolution? because mixing the DNA of two individuals results in more bio diversity. Bananas are a plant cultivated by man. They do not reproduce sexually. They are all clones of one another. Right now we are apparently losing the battle with a fungus that is killing all the banana trees it comes in contact with. They are all genetically the same, so they are all susceptible. This happened once before, in the 50's. But back then we had a back up banana (the ones we eat today) when the previous version went extinct. Today, we don't really have a back up. There is a real possibility that a few years down the line, there will be no bananas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:19:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the Answer... If it were boring and asexual, it would eventually stop occurring and then what? nothing but lesbians, Gheays and other Non-Breeders and the end is Nigh. Reproduction feels great for a reason. if it didn't, we wouldn't do it. Get out of the basement, meet a person of the opposite sex, and have Consensual sex with them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's fun? If it were boring and asexual, it would eventually stop occurring and then what? nothing but lesbians, Gheays and other Non-Breeders and the end is Nigh. Reproduction feels great for a reason. if it didn't, we wouldn't do it. Get out of the basement, meet a person of the opposite sex, and have Consensual sex with them. Or what if it just happened on its own? You get super drunk one night and wake up "fuck I'm pregnant again!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:20:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I went ahead and fixed it for you to reflect the dildoism that's bound to surface in this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have"
Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution communist propaganda! http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. No - you've got it wrong. It is in a book that wasn't written a couple of thousand years ago. Therefore it can't be true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:21:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I took these pics a while back at my local library. Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution! <a href="http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg</a> I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have"
Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution! <a href="http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg</a> I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. We haven't seen an example to the contrary, either. Evolution relies on theories, and what-ifs, don't be the fool who built his house on the shifting sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:21:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If anyone is actually interested in reading about this, I'd recommend "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. It was written long before he became militant, so it's not preachy and it's pretty accessible. Of course if you just want to sling shit around and not bother reading anything, who am I to stop you? This is GD after all... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:22:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This plus competition makes a species stronger Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Genetic diversity. This plus competition makes a species stronger These. If evolution were true? The evidence is overwhelming, it's not a question anymore. Also crazy this debate still happens in a first world country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:29:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. We haven't seen an example to the contrary, either. Evolution relies on theories, and what-ifs, don't be the fool who built his house on the shifting sand. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have" Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution! <a href="http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg</a> I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. We haven't seen an example to the contrary, either. Evolution relies on theories, and what-ifs, don't be the fool who built his house on the shifting sand. There are all kinds of animals that are both male and female. Your statement is just completely wrong. Yes, it will be just as weak and incorrect as it ever was. And your creation story relies on made up bullshit, lies, and fantasy. I'm not, that's why I stopped being christian years ago. Here you go, this simple video will help replace your failed education:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:31:56 PM EDT
[#32]
And, there it is....MDK - are you my father in law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
No - you've got it wrong. It is in a book that wasn't written a couple of thousand years ago. Therefore it can't be true. Quote HistoryQuoted:
No - you've got it wrong. It is in a book that wasn't written a couple of thousand years ago. Therefore it can't be true. Quoted:
Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. We haven't seen an example to the contrary, either. Evolution relies on theories, and what-ifs, don't be the fool who built his house on the shifting sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:32:54 PM EDT
[#33]
What I meant by lemurs is there are over 100 species. Many are deformities. If a deformity doesn't work or doesn't help that lemur dies. If it does that trait gets passed on. We may have changed the human race buy keeping people alive that shouldn't have. Weather that person breeds and passes on that gene Is the start of evolution.
There are different breeds of humans. Some are smarter than others. Some are better at certain tasks than others. With world travel the human race is going to change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:32:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
you get 50% of your genes from one parent and the other 50% from the other parent. wouldn't we have asexual reproduction for a more perfect evolution? That is not how evolution works. Francis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:36:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Extraterrestrials banged some apes. So aliens travelled millions of light years in space just so they could screw a monkey? I thought I was horny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:39:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have"
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have"
by five monkeys having butt sex with a retarded fish squirrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:39:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If evolution is true then how did sexual reproduction START in the first place oh boy... No, tell me. How did we get from amoeba-like single called life, to multicellular creatures that are male and female and produce sexually. Be sure to use actual examples and not "well it could have" Look - SHELVES UPON SHELVES of books on evolution! <a href="http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/6FfSkK7.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/Yf8i23n.jpg</a> <a href="http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/GaHtgsI.jpg</a> I'm sure that your local library has a similar selection. There's no excuse for your continued ignorance. Because the existence of a big stack of books about something proves it is true? I asked for a specific example of how we can get from single celled creatures to multicellular creatures that sexually reproduce as male and female, not a fools errand of finding the answer in a mountain of contradictory texts. I can guarantee you this however, in 100 years most if not all of those texts will be outdated, superseded, and forgotten. But there is one book that has been around for thousands of years and will still be around strong as ever. And somehow it doesn't take a whole shelf of books to explain, that in the beginning we along with the animals were created male and female, and reproduce after our kind. Furthermore, biology is complicated; why do you believe that if something requires a whole shelf of books (or more) to explain, somehow that means it's false? Moreover, the fact that your beliefs about scientific matters don't change as we learn more about the world isn't something to be proud of. You clearly have no intention of trying to find the answer to your question... if you did, you'd be at the library or on websites with serious scientific content, instead of playing "gotcha" on a gun forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:40:07 PM EDT
[#38]
The better question is, how does Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation ever get to building a sexual reproductive system when the system itself has to be fully functional from the start, ie. Selection would be workin AGAINST the mutations necessary fpr it because you'd have to have male and female parts "evolving" at the same time, paradoxically, without it it fully functioning yet, and therefore, no reproduction. No reproduction means Natural Selection culls you out. Natural Selection would preserve the non-sexual reproduction form.
On top of all this is the absurdity of Selection on the macro-scale of the organism being able to pick the right gene mutations on a genetic level through all the levels of noise inbetween, to build a new working system. It's anathema but science really does refute the General Theory of Evolution (ie. that time+chemicals eventually gets you people.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:42:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Simple answer... It works.
Everything wants to get laid. If doing the dishes was how we reproduced, there would be less kids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:42:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question is, how does Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation ever get to building a sexual reproductive system when the system itself has to be fully functional from the start, ie. Selection would be workin AGAINST the mutations necessary fpr it because you'd have to have male and female parts "evolving" at the same time, paradoxically, without it it fully functioning yet, and therefore, no reproduction. No reproduction means Natural Selection culls you out. Natural Selection would preserve the non-sexual reproduction form. On top of all this is the absurdity of Selection on the macro-scale of the organism being able to pick the right gene mutations on a genetic level through all the levels of noise inbetween, to build a new working system. It's anathema but science really does refute the General Theory of Evolution (ie. that time+chemicals eventually gets you people.) No one chooses the new genes. They remain because the other individuals without them died off before they could reproduce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:44:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If evolution were true? The evidence is overwhelming, it's not a question anymore. Also crazy this debate still happens in a first world country. #religion |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:45:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Pollination has it's place
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:46:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:47:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The better question is, how does Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation ever get to building a sexual reproductive system when the system itself has to be fully functional from the start, ie. Selection would be workin AGAINST the mutations necessary fpr it because you'd have to have male and female parts "evolving" at the same time, paradoxically, without it it fully functioning yet, and therefore, no reproduction. Bacteria can exchange genes with each other, sometimes, even different species of bacteria can exchange genes. Sometimes they do this seemingly intentionally, forming "bridges" between each other and exchanging DNA. Other times, its not so much as sex as just absorbing parts of others and incorporating them into their cells. It is a complete myth that all sexual species can't reproduce asexually, as many can. Even multi-cellular ones. Also, many examples of sexual reproduction in lower life forms, and worms and mollusks, do not have devoted males and females. Rather they have hermaphrodites. When you say "sex requires male and female" it definitely shows you ignorance on the topic of biology. It is literally akin to hearing someone say that you can make an ar15 full auto by filing down the firing pin. It is that uninformed and silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:47:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question is, how does Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation ever get to building a sexual reproductive system when the system itself has to be fully functional from the start, ie. Selection would be workin AGAINST the mutations necessary fpr it because you'd have to have male and female parts "evolving" at the same time, paradoxically, without it it fully functioning yet, and therefore, no reproduction. No reproduction means Natural Selection culls you out. Natural Selection would preserve the non-sexual reproduction form. On top of all this is the absurdity of Selection on the macro-scale of the organism being able to pick the right gene mutations on a genetic level through all the levels of noise inbetween, to build a new working system. It's anathema but science really does refute the General Theory of Evolution (ie. that time+chemicals eventually gets you people.) General Theory of Evolution? I've never heard it referred to as such, makes me wonder where you're getting this. Quick google....first thing that pops up... Encyclopedia of Creation Science. Explains why it doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:50:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Nowhere in my life do I run into more people who believe in pure creationism, with no evolution, then on arfcom...
You guys could at least update your mindset and move to the religion and science are not mutually exclusive group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:52:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere in my life do I run into more people who believe in pure creationism, with no evolution, then on arfcom... You guys could at least update your mindset and move to the religion and science are not mutually exclusive group. Things have changed a lot in the last 50 years or so. Speaking of which... Life |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 8:57:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I predict this thread will be rational, thoughtful, and not degenerate into personal attacks. No, you're stupid!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 9:00:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere in my life do I run into more people who believe in pure creationism, with no evolution, then on arfcom... You guys could at least update your mindset and move to the religion and science are not mutually exclusive group. This thread already has the predictable and usual assortments of genetic diversity that proves Darwin's case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 9:01:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: General Theory of Evolution? I've never heard it referred to as such, makes me wonder where you're getting this. Quick google....first thing that pops up... Encyclopedia of Creation Science. Explains why it doesn't make sense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The better question is, how does Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation ever get to building a sexual reproductive system when the system itself has to be fully functional from the start, ie. Selection would be workin AGAINST the mutations necessary fpr it because you'd have to have male and female parts "evolving" at the same time, paradoxically, without it it fully functioning yet, and therefore, no reproduction. No reproduction means Natural Selection culls you out. Natural Selection would preserve the non-sexual reproduction form. On top of all this is the absurdity of Selection on the macro-scale of the organism being able to pick the right gene mutations on a genetic level through all the levels of noise inbetween, to build a new working system. It's anathema but science really does refute the General Theory of Evolution (ie. that time+chemicals eventually gets you people.) General Theory of Evolution? I've never heard it referred to as such, makes me wonder where you're getting this. Quick google....first thing that pops up... Encyclopedia of Creation Science. Explains why it doesn't make sense. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
