Questions For Evolutionists.

[SaxonJackson]

It of course did and still does. 11th grade biology students watch it happen.

Your buddy believes that it isn't right for close relatives to "mate." Ooops.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your buddy believes that it isn't right for close relatives to "mate." Ooops.

And you do? Gross.

Also not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[SaxonJackson]

And you do? Gross.

Also not sure what this has to do with anything.

The previous posts explain it.

Again, if mitosis is a viable and efficient manner by which to perpetuate a species, then there was never a good reason to evolve sexual organs. Sometimes the simple truth is hard to see or accept.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, if mitosis is a viable and efficient manner by which to perpetuate a species, then there was never a good reason to evolve sexual organs.

Says you. But your opinion is woefully uninformed and biased and therefore worthless.

 

[ReinyDays]

And yet, you believe that mitosis occurred for billions of years.

The Bible teaches that male and female were created as separate sexes. The Bible also teaches that siblings should not procreate. Two points for the Bible -- Zero points for Evolution.

You didn't answer my question ... do you believe in inherited traits? ...

Not answering is an answer in of itself ... the Bible teaches that as well ...

 

[SaxonJackson]

You didn't answer my question ... do you believe in inherited traits? ...

Not answering is an answer in of itself ... the Bible teaches that as well ...

I do believe in inherited traits. Some of my siblings look more like my mother, while others look more like my father. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that I have a mother (female) and a father (male) and that I have brothers (males) and sisters (females). This system of reproduction (males mating with females) has been recorded for as long as mankind has been recording history (both biblical and secular).

 

[ReinyDays]

I do believe in inherited traits. Some of my siblings look more like my mother, while others look more like my father. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that I have a mother (female) and a father (male) and that I have brothers (males) and sisters (females). This system of reproduction (males mating with females) has been recorded for as long as mankind has been recording history (both biblical and secular).

Do you not also agree that algae 'daughter' cells resemble the original 'mother' cell ... even though no sex occurred? ... there is no male or female in many many species ... are these not also inherited traits? ...

The Bible teaches absolute monogamy ... married for life ... YOU don't seem to want to talk about that ... is that a problem for you? ... you're certainly a war-monger, are you also a whore-monger? ...

 

[SaxonJackson]

Do you not also agree that algae 'daughter' cells resemble the original 'mother' cell ... even though no sex occurred? ... there is no male or female in many many species ... are these not also inherited traits? ...

The Bible teaches absolute monogamy ... married for life ... YOU don't seem to want to talk about that ... is that a problem for you? ... you're certainly a war-monger, are you also a whore-monger? ...

Well … it seemed that you were actually speaking as a sane adult for a while. But now you're accusing me of being a “warmonger” and a “whore-monger.” That's a very odd turn of events. Not only am I neither, but they came out of left-field without cause.

But back to the topic at hand: How can an asexual life form give birth to a “daughter?”

 

[ReinyDays]

Well … it seemed that you were actually speaking as a sane adult for a while. But now you're accusing me of being a “warmonger” and a “whore-monger.” That's a very odd turn of events. Not only am I neither, but they came out of left-field without cause.

You've come to this forum to pick a fight ... that's called warmongering in the Bible ... Jesus condemns this in His phrasing "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ...

But back to the topic at hand: How can an asexual life form give birth to a “daughter?”

My improper punctuation is a choice ... I do know how and where to use a period to end a sentence ... but I choose not to ... however, I am using these quotes properly to indicate a word being used in a non-standard way ...

You're using gender as a dodge to the question ... do asexual single cell organisms experience inherited traits? ...

For those species that go both ways, it is only the female that reproduced asexually, producing female offspring ... thus the nominative "mother" cell and "daughter" cells is proper ... and that's rarely the case with gender, just saying ...

 

[SaxonJackson]

You've come to this forum to pick a fight ... that's called warmongering in the Bible ... Jesus condemns this in His phrasing "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ...



My improper punctuation is a choice ... I do know how and where to use a period to end a sentence ... but I choose not to ... however, I am using these quotes properly to indicate a word being used in a non-standard way ...

You're using gender as a dodge to the question ... do asexual single cell organisms experience inherited traits? ...

For those species that go both ways, it is only the female that reproduced asexually, producing female offspring ... thus the nominative "mother" cell and "daughter" cells is proper ... and that's rarely the case with gender, just saying ...

You seem more than happy to “battle” over ideologies. But that's not “warmongering.” That's called honest debate. The Bible also teaches that Christians should stand up for and preach the truth. It's really not my problem if you can't handle biblical truth.

The topic of the thread begs the question: If “fission” or “mitosis” worked fine for “billions of years” then why the need to develop sexual organs. Nobody has come close to answering that question. The second, closely related question has to do with the idea that different species all developed sexual organs during their own process of “evolution.” The odds of that are so far out of reach as to be impossible.

“Only the female” reproduced asexually and only produced “female offspring?” Really? Where did the males come from then? LOL

 

[ReinyDays]

You seem more than happy to “battle” over ideologies. But that's not “warmongering.” That's called honest debate. The Bible also teaches that Christians should stand up for and preach the truth. It's really not my problem if you can't handle biblical truth.

Then you should be honest with us ...

The topic of the thread begs the question: If “fission” or “mitosis” worked fine for “billions of years” then why the need to develop sexual organs. Nobody has come close to answering that question.

The answer was to facilitate quicker adaption to changing ecosystems ... why are you lying? ...

The second, closely related question has to do with the idea that different species all developed sexual organs during their own process of “evolution.” The odds of that are so far out of reach as to be impossible.

“Only the female” reproduced asexually and only produced “female offspring?” Really? Where did the males come from then? LOL

These organisms have both sets of genitalia ... they both impregnant and get pregnant in the same copulation ... like earthworms ...

=====

Do asexual single cell organisms experience inherited traits? ...

You harm Christainity by not answering this question ... you should be more careful when you call upon the name of our God ... He listens don't you know ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You seem more than happy to “battle” over ideologies.

The same error again.

Religious folks are so steeped in "because I say so" dogma, they don't understand that science has nothing to do with ideology. It's not a concept that even appears on their radar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The same error again.

Religious folks are so steeped in "because I say so" dogma, they don't understand that science has nothing to do with ideology. It's not a concept that even appears on their radar.

sure thing with no actual proof your scientists routinely say believe me cause I say so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

sure thing with no actual proof your scientists routinely say believe me cause I say so.

Says you. Of course this would get you laughed out of any room of educated, rational people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Says you. Of course this would get you laughed out of any room of educated, rational people.

only because you refuse to acknowledge that making guesses no matter how good a guess it is is not proof. the holes in the supposed fossils linked to mankind are numerous and of thousands of years in some cases.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

only because you refuse to acknowledge that making guesses no matter how good a guess it is is not proof

That's idiotic. The guess is called a "hypothesis".


Yes, smart, educated people thought of that before you did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's idiotic. The guess is called a "hypothesis".


Yes, smart, educated people thought of that before you did.

it is still just a guess, and you believe it cause you want to you have FAITH that they are right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

it is still just a guess, and you believe it cause you want to you have FAITH that they are right.

Yes, a hypothesis is a guess.

Contrary to your silly lies, nobody offers a hypothesis as proof of anything, outside of your religious culture.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, a hypothesis is a guess.

Contrary to your silly lies, nobody offers a hypothesis as proof of anything, outside of your religious culture.

and yet you claim that hypothesis is fact and that science proves man evolved from an ape like creature.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The previous posts explain it.

Again, if mitosis is a viable and efficient manner by which to perpetuate a species, then there was never a good reason to evolve sexual organs. Sometimes the simple truth is hard to see or accept.

Heave Ho to So-So

Mere survival is not a goal. Superior creatures have a drive for something better than that.