DeepSight:


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.

donnffd:
The periodic table is an arrangement of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations and recurring chemical properties. Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number. The standard form of the table consists of a grid of elements, with rows called periods and columns called groups.

The history of the periodic table reflects over a century of growth in the understanding of chemical properties. The most important event in its history occurred in 1869, when the table was published by Dmitri Mendeleev.

What does this have to do with what you asked, you might ask, well look at it this way, In 1869 when mendeleev created the table, there were lots of elements missing, but because of what he understood from the ones he had found, he could accurately and confidently predict the properties of the missing elements.

After years and improvement in technology, many of those elements were discovered or synthesized and all of them were just as were predicted.

Now Evolution is not as similar as the periodic table, but it shows some gaps in our knowledge, we dont know everything and thats why we have science and why people are working on it day and night to answer the questions, but when you deem a theory wrong because it cant yet answer some strange questions, Everything would be wrong because you certainly wont get anything right.

4everGod:
[/b]



To the highlighted. Since you have attested to the fact that you do not hold all the explanations yet why then do you believe in evolution as a final authority when it is yet to have all the answers? Refer to your last words.

Is a fact based on conclusion or inconclusiveness? Better yet, is something right even when it is not fully proven or is it right after it has been fully proven?

donnffd:


If you are a detective solving a case, you get to a crime scene, see a dead body with gun shots in the back, but no gun, what would be your theory of this victims death?

Obviously a homocide!, Now you cant explain the motive, you dont know the type of weapon, and you most certainly dont know the killer, but because you cant explain all this things, does it automatically makes your theory incorrect?

Dejideji1:
1. How did the first life forms evolve? (I know you will say by chance)

2. Why is it that it’s life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required. Scientists claim to know all the building blocks of life but why have they not been able to create life in the lab if it happened by chance as they believe?

3. For the issue of the sexes, how did male and female species evolve independently?

donnffd:
The periodic table is an arrangement of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations and recurring chemical properties. Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number. The standard form of the table consists of a grid of elements, with rows called periods and columns called groups.

The history of the periodic table reflects over a century of growth in the understanding of chemical properties. The most important event in its history occurred in 1869, when the table was published by Dmitri Mendeleev.

What does this have to do with what you asked, you might ask, well look at it this way, In 1869 when mendeleev created the table, there were lots of elements missing, but because of what he understood from the ones he had found, he could accurately and confidently predict the properties of the missing elements.

After years and improvement in technology, many of those elements were discovered or synthesized and all of them were just as were predicted.

Now Evolution is not as similar as the periodic table, but it shows some gaps in our knowledge, we dont know everything and thats why we have science and why people are working on it day and night to answer the questions, but when you deem a theory wrong because it cant yet answer some strange questions, Everything would be wrong because you certainly wont get anything right.

Seun:
Deepsight, how many evolution textbook have you read? Do you really think evolutionary biologists haven't asked themselves these questions?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Scientists don't claim to know ALL the building blocks of life. That's just wrong. Science never makes such delusional claims, but religions do. Do you really think science will never figure out how to create life, though? Many things being done routinely today used to be impossible.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Seun:
Deepsight, how many evolution textbook have you read? Do you really think evolutionary biologists haven't asked themselves these questions?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Scientists don't claim to know ALL the building blocks of life. That's just wrong. Science never makes such delusional claims, but religions do. Do you really think science will never figure out how to create life, though? Many things being done routinely today used to be impossible.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Dejideji1:
Warning, the following exposition contains some biological terms that may sound vulgar

Evolutionary Theories On Gender And Sexual Reproduction

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?

Some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today, 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.

(Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D)


I see this as one of the flaws in the evolution theory. Now to some intriguing questions

1. How did the first life forms evolve? (I know you will say by chance)

2. Why is it that it’s life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.
Scientists claim to know all the building blocks of life but why have they not been able to create life in the lab if it happened by chance as they believe.?

3. For the issue of the sexes, how did male and female species evolve independently?




Questions 5 to 12 are very similar to what I had in mind before I stumbled on his post. All those questions strongly point to a purposeful design rather than chance through occurrence of some random events.

Nobody(the “evolutiondidit” guys) could answer those twelve questions in the thread he created, here : https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction

Let’s see if we will get answers to them today.


Further reading: https://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.php

Cc: DeepSight, Johnydon22, ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, Weah96 , AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonofLucifer, Frank317, muskets , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , cloudgoddess , ifenes , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer, dalaman, hopefulLandlord, menehsheh, donnffd, Urahara, HardMirror



KingEbukasBlog, winner01, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Farmerforlife, muafrika2, 4evergod2, udysweet

Dejideji1:



What we know is that it's only life that begets life so far, they have only been successful @cloning which still requires a pre-existing life (a living cell)

Weah96:


Not true. There is this one subgroup of living things which doesn't come from a prexisting life.

They are called eternal living things. They even designed eternity itself before occupying it.

Dejideji1:


Lol, what are you saying?

Weah96:


You said ALL life MUST come from a PREEXISTING life.

I disagreed. There are entities with life who didn't require a living progenitor.

Your god, for example. Yes it's fictional, but the concept is that living beings can always exist, transcending the contraints of time.



There is an entire species of eternal beings, or is it just one eternal being?

Dejideji1:
Those links didn't answer the question at all. The details in the first link is full of assumptions. Abiogenesis is the natural process of life occurring from non-living matter, such as simple organic matter.

It still has to do with the question i asked, why is it that scientists have not been able to replicate the process in the lab? So far, they have not been able to create life from non-living matter.

What we know is that it's only life that begets life so far, they have only been successful @cloning which still requires a pre-existing life (a living cell)

The second link didn't account for the origin of the sexes or how they evolved independently. It only addressed the need/advantage of sexual reproduction. Which doesn't answer the question

Dejideji1:


Please don't derail the thread, it's too early. This your comment has nothing to do with the op.

Seun:
That's question 2. The link I gave you answers question 1. You should check the references if you need more details.

Seun:

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

Seun:


Having struck down your false premise, the simple answer is that they haven't figured it out yet. Why bother when living cells are so cheap?

ValentineMary:
We have several hypothesis on how life came about. 1. Pre modial soup: At the earth initial stage which was densly hot, ammonia, hydrogen, mathane, CO2, came together to form amino acid. Hmmm of amino acid can be formed this way, can't life be formed randomly because we don't know how all the bio molecules came together does not give us the right to be intellectually lazy and assume a divine being did it. Else God would be an ever receding pocket of scientific discoveries.

2. Extra terestrial life: An astroid crashed on earth some time ago. But on it's surface were amino acid all in the L configuration. One amazing thing here is that ALL living things have amino acid in the L configuration even though we have D & L configuration. Could it be life has extra terrestrial origin

About sex, the lower u go in the evolutionary tree, the more primitive the sex organ. Simple orgamisms like yeast don't have male and female so they reproduce by budding (asexual) but as organisms get complex, there is a need for specialization of organs. For example in simple cells, the act of metabolism is carried out by simple organelles made from simple carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. But in complex organism is done by the liver which is made up of millions of organelles.

Similar our sex organ. Which is made of so many cells with nuclear materials (which is the basic component for reproduction). The qus of why are we sexual when we have asexual is like saying why do we have a complex organ (liver) for metabolism when we can easily use the endoplasmic reticulum? The ans is simple complexity needs specialization.

tempem:




Hahahaha!!!!


Wait am not gonna argue..
But this is the fact..


They are claims, right?

They've not been proven!!

ValentineMary:

When u said "This is the fact" you spoke authoritatively but that does not make u right. The process I mentioned on amino acid synthesis has been replicated in the lab.

Seun:
Deepsight, how many evolution textbooks have you read? Do you really think evolutionary biologists haven't asked themselves these questions?

DeepSight:


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Bell, Graham, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 19, 1982.
[2] Bell, Ref. 1, p. 54.
[3] Ridley, Mark, The Cooperative Gene, The Free Press, New York, pp. 108,111, 2001.
[4] Schecter, Julie, How Did Sex Come About?, Bioscience, 34:680, December 1984.
[5] Crow, J.F., The Importance of Recombination, The Evolution of Sex: An Examination of Current Ideas, ed. Michod and Levin, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, p. 35, 1988. /
[6] Crow, Ref. 5. /
[7] Eldredgen Niles and Joel. Cracraft, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology, Columbia Universiy Press, New York, p.102, 1980. /
[8] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[9] Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998. /
[10] Crow, Ref. 5, p. 60. /
[11] Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Francisco J. Ayala, G. Ledyard Stebbins, and James W. Valentine, Evolution, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, p. 391, 1977. /
[12] Williams, George C., Sex and Evolution: in the Monographs in Population Biology series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975. /
[13] Zimmer, Carl, Parasite Rex, The Free Press, New York, p. 163, 2000. /
[14] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen Viking, London, p. 254, 1993. /
[15] Reichenbach, Bruce and V. Elving Anderson, On Behalf of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 18. /
[16] Zimmer, Carl, Ref. 10, p. 163. /
[17] Cartwright, John, Evolution and Human Behavior, Macmillan, London, p. 96, 2000. /
[18] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, p. 87, 1977. /
[19] Van Valen, Leigh, A New Evolutionary Law, Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30, 1973. /
[20] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 97. /
[21] Bernstein, H., F.A. Hopf, and R.E. Michod, The Evolution of Sex: DNA Repair Hypothesis, The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, ed. C. Rasa and E. Voland, Chapman and Hall, London, p. 4, 1989. /
[22] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[23] Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen, Viking, London, 1993. /
[24] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[25] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[26] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, p. 254. /
[27] Maddox, John, Ref. 6, p. 252. /
[28] Maddox, Ref. 6, p. 253. /
[29] Ridley, Ref. 3, p. 109. /
[30] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 99. /
[31] Zimmer, Carl, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, HarperCollins, New York, pp. 230, 231, 2001. /
[32] Ridley, Mark, Ref. 3, pp. 108-109. /
[33] Ward, Peter, Future Evolution, Henry Holt, New York, p. 153, 2001. /
[34] Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York, p. 98, 2001. /
[35] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[36] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 98. /
[37] Crow, J.F., The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386, 1997. /
[38] Cartwright, John, Ref. 14, p. 98. /
[39] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Genes, Peoples, and Languages, North Point Press, New York, p. 176, 2000. /
[40] Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Ref. 15, pp. 88,103,107. /
[41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. /
[42] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 103. /
[43] Mayr, Ernst, Ref. 31, p. 104. /
[44] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 291, 1997. /
[45] Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Ref. 41, p. 293. /
[46] Ackerman, Jennifer, Chance in the House of Fate, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 48-49, 2001. /
[47] Ackerman, Jennifer, Ref. 43, p. 115. /
[48] Thomas, Lewis, The Medusa and the Snail, Viking, New York, pp. 155-157, 1979. /
[49] Hoffman, Banesh, Albert Einstein, New American Library, p. 73. /

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Discussed in the paper are various theories on the origin of se.xual reproduction, including the DNA Repair Hypothesis, the Red Queen Hypothesis, the Tangled Bank Hypothesis and the Lottery Principle - some of which I had already pointed your co-travelers on this thread to, with a link I posted for them, asking them to go through these theories and point out answers to my posers therein.

With the above, it is obvious who is ignorantly grandstanding and making puerile assumptions.
It was a challenge which nobody took up.

Nuff said!

tempem:

Controlled lab of course... Not a random event..
Organized lab..
Lol..
Which came first protein or cell?
Another weird question.

tempem:

Controlled lab of course... Not a random event..
Organized lab..
Lol..
Which came first protein or cell?
Another weird question.

Dejideji1:

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?

Some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today, 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.

(Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D)

I see this as one of the flaws in the evolution theory. Now to some intriguing questions

1. How did the first life forms evolve? (I know you will say by chance)

2. Why is it that it’s life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.
Scientists claim to know all the building blocks of life but why have they not been able to create life in the lab if it happened by chance as they believe.?

3. For the issue of the sexes, how did male and female species evolve independently?

Questions 5 to 12 are very similar to what I had in mind before I stumbled on his post. All those questions strongly point to a purposeful design rather than chance through occurrence of some random events.

4everGod:


How would you know it was a gun shot wound if you have not seen one before and if you do not know what a gun shot wound looks like and if you have never seen what a gun shot wound looks like and you see this, why would you conclude it was a gun that did it especially when you also have not seen a gun before as well? Does that make any sense to even the origin of the homicidal death theory?

post=48425573:


Lol, what are you saying?

AgentOfAllah:
Be careful about making sensational unscientific claims. Asexual reproduction does not offer the kind of genetic diversity that sexual reproduction does. As such, sexual reproduction is actually more advantageous in species that are threatened by genetic diseases/viruses. Read HERE on worms that started favouring sexual reproduction over asexualism due to radiation in Chernobyl.

Read on sexual dimorphism HERE. You may be surprised by how much science has actually uncovered so far. Many questions still exist of course...but that's why science exists. It literally thrives on questions. That a questioned has not been answered does not mean it'll never be answered. Allow me to caution you against using unanswered questions as proof of your intelligent creator. That's a slippery place you don't want to be in, whereby, as was succinctly put By Niel DeGrasse Tyson, your creator becomes "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on".

Again, be careful here!