plaetton: I am so surprised that a dogmatic position can hold one in so tight a hostage that it completely obscures ones deep reflections and one's deepsight.

How silly is it really to attack an accepted theory from a position of ignorance?

If you want a scientific debate about this, then arm yourself with scientific reasons why you reject the current scientific positions on this.
Stop this silly nonsense of ' of I reject this because I feel this or I feel that way. Insufficient knowledge is grounds to reject an idea.
Most people don't understand the compicated work of trying to explain aspects of evolution. Most people are very scared of even trying, for fear that they might see it's strong merits.
Yet everyone with a god comes i here with barely baked and even blank knowledge to loudly challenge what they don't understand, and may never understand.

plaetton: I am so surprised that a dogmatic position can hold one in so tight a hostage that it completely obscures ones deep reflections and one's deepsight.

How silly is it really to attack an accepted theory from a position of ignorance?

If you want a scientific debate about this, then arm yourself with scientific reasons why you reject the current scientific positions on this.
Stop this silly nonsense of ' of I reject this because I feel this or I feel that way. Insufficient knowledge is grounds to reject an idea.
Most people don't understand the compicated work of trying to explain aspects of evolution. Most people are very scared of even trying, for fear that they might see it's strong merits.
Yet everyone with a god comes i here with barely baked and even blank knowledge to loudly challenge what they don't understand, and may never understand.

plaetton: I am so surprised that a dogmatic position can hold one in so tight a hostage that it completely obscures ones deep reflections and one's deepsight.

How silly is it really to attack an accepted theory from a position of ignorance?

If you want a scientific debate about this, then arm yourself with scientific reasons why you reject the current scientific positions on this.
Stop this silly nonsense of ' of I reject this because I feel this or I feel that way. Insufficient knowledge is grounds to reject an idea.
Most people don't understand the compicated work of trying to explain aspects of evolution. Most people are very scared of even trying, for fear that they might see it's strong merits.
Yet everyone with a god comes i here with barely baked and even blank knowledge to loudly challenge what they don't understand, and may never understand.

Pastor Kun:

Must you argue for the sake of argument All you have written above makes no sense.

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.

Deep Sight: ^^^ 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.

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.

Deep Sight:

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 do not have neither the inclination, nor the aptitude and capacity to question science. The day that becomes true of me, I will commit suicide.

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.

Deep Sight:



Frankly, your statement infers that all scientific propositions should be wholly accepted without question.

Deep Sight:
^^^ 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.

Deepsight: 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.

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 unexplained does not mean the inexplicable

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.

Joshthefirst: Just as I was about to open this kind of thread. Nice.

In over 1.4 million species on earth there is a distinct gender difference; Male and female.

plaetton:

Asking questions is a very good start, Deepsight. No one can fault you for that.
The point you and many others miss is that the questions , most anyway, have answers and have been answered.

YOUR problem is the comprehension and acceptance of those answers.
Do not come here to ask scientific questions that already have answers, or accepted theoretical probabilities, when all you have to do is bury yourself into the very subject for any considerable length of time.

You don't seem to get it.
For you to ask these questions obviously means that you have never been exposed to the scientific answers.
So, you have a task ahead of you.

No one in Nl might have the expertise to answer your querries as simply and as elegantly as you would prefer.


Most importanty, just like your previous querries on the subject , it is glaring from your language that you are out to argue against whatever is out there for evolution, albeit with grossly insufficient knowledge.

If you want answers, visit your public library, if such exists in your neck of the woods, enroll in a course on evolutionary biology, or take your sweet time to delligently study the subject.

Your words alone cannot annul the theory, except for the likes of Josh.

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!

Deep Sight:
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.

Evil Brain:

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

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.

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!

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.

Deep Sight:



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!

Evil Brain:

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

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 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.

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 he must feel good!

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.

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.

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.