Sexual Reproduction - Another Problem For Evolution.

[Apologist]

And everyone is ignoring the fact that i showed using the human body why human sexuality supports evolution. Ah well.

 

[snowy]

Bob b, thanks for the reply -- but please don't try to fool us (or yourself too?) that this thread is for "science" even though it's posted in the "Religion" forum and there is an obvious "religious" motive behind it.. I thought this is a discussion, and both parts should advance their points and try to support/counter them. In your case, just bashing the obvious provisional status of biological sciences, without giving us anything better instead, is utterly futile. We've already admitted we do not know for sure how some complex processes (like sexual differentation) had happened billions of years ago, but we're trying to find out and we can still provide reasonable hypothesizing, making inferences from existing evidence/observations, etc.

I believe that everything that happened after creation has been according to the laws of the universe which work according to the design of God. I also believe that these laws could not have come into existence by themselves, nor could the material universe either.

I gather you're more of an YEC type and by dismissing macroevolution, you're essentially saying that all different species on Earth were created somewhat independently, right? And only made to look like they belong to a common phylogenetic tree - just to confuse the stupid evolutionists -- when in fact you known they are not, in fact, evolved from some common ancestor, correct? For that would contradict your bible.

If you knew more about biology you would realize that most bacteria are not only harmless but actually many are required for the routine operation of other lifeforms.

Sure. But you must be kidding trying to use this scientific observation as your excuse for the "creation" of species like Yersinia pestis or whatever caused the bubonic and black plagues of the Dark Ages -- are you saying that God did it for the preservation of the ecosystem!? This is your "Intelligent" Designer's excuse too, I presume -- the He just couldn't do it without wiping out millions of humans (the cream of his Creation, otherwise, right?) with various microbial plagues, just for the sake of some lower organism's physiological needs.. If your Creation Science is so well rooted in biology, do you happen to know for what "other lifeforms' routine operation" Yersinia pestis was so "needed"?

Moreover, according to your logic, doesn't it follow that the eradication of these plagues is then a very bad ecological movement from our part? For you know, we shouldn't interfere with the creation, and if he created those microbes for the purposes you suggested and we're killing them, you know.. we're screwing up His great but tight design, aren't we?

However, since the beginning a harmful process has been taking place, mutation, which sometimes transforms harmless or useful bacteria into harmful forms. This is called gradual deterioration of the creation and may be related to "The Fall".

I see, so if the inherent logic of the Great Design doesn't fly you'll always have the "Fall" fallback story -- where things can get out of whack yet the Designer still keeps His hands clean. You'd think. So now killer microbes were especially "designed" to kill us through plagues as part of a Divine punishment&torture plan. (Don't tell me He didn't know they'll mutate in that direction). Physical death of old age wasn't enough, eh? Kind of spiteful , bellicose and even cruel designer/creator you have there -- considering that he also killed a lot of innocent children and animals in the process. (Did you also use to put a similar kind of destructive anger in your engineering work? With such a great role model, I wouldn't be surprised). However by eradicating those plagues we're still kinda' screwing up His [vengeful] design plans, I guess?

Yes, he is long on hypothesizing, but unfortunately short on science.

I don't see how you can mean this. You must know that that's exactly how science starts, by hypothesizing.

I have books by Dawkins. Did you know that he "borrowed" the selfish gene idea from John Maynard Smith's book, "The Theory of Evolution"? Smith later admitted that his suggestion was sort of a joke, yet Dawkins never seemed to get the humor, to this day.

Cute trivia - but no need to change the topic. I couldn't care less if Dawkins plagiarized someone else's work and made it popular. Science shouldn't be a search for personal glory anyway, it should only care about the theories and hope for the truth being unveiled in the process. And indeed, there is nothing new about the "selfish gene" idea. What he's presenting there is pretty much orthodox darwinism. So what did he steal, the "selfish" metaphor? That unfortunately brought him a lot of useless criticism from those who didn't understand it and took that attribute too literally, in a moral sense.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that lifeforms work because of the proteins they produce,

Actually, life form works because of specific patterns of interactions of those proteins, not only between themselves but also with all the other non-proteic components of an organism, including DNA (e.g. regulating transcription), etc.

..and that there are vast chasms of useless proteins between the types produced by different lifeforms such as birds, mammals, reptiles, etc.

Oh no, not Behe's "chasm" again. So what? What does this prove? That the biblical god created them like that? Or perhaps that we just don't understand yet all the intermediary steps that were taken during the long evolutionary history to arrive at this state of facts? There are still plenty of common or similar things between all those animal kinds -- including a large part of their DNA, many well conserverd proteins, etc.

Prior to this finding it had been assumed that there were no such chasms between the various "types".

So what - that's how science progresses. New findings all the time. Shifting paradigms if needed - it's OK, it's a learning process, it's still a progress. What do you have really supporting the biblical account of creation and how much sense does that make?

As I have said many times, when the scientific arguments are going badly for them, the evolutionists typically try to switch the topic to the Bible.

But isn't this precisely what you're trying to do too, ultimately? If evolution is wrong, the bible must be true -- that's how your itchy non sequitur goes, I suppose. So let's bash [macro]evolutionism, and your "truth" will prevail, right?

Besides, my question to you was pretty much on the topic of sexual differentiation. Again, I was hoping for an exchange of ideas here, not just to join the chorus of your anti-evolutionist bickering. We already admitted we don't know much but we can still hypothesize rationally on the subject. Now it's your turn, give us something already. Preferrably from your textbook (the Bible).

So, here we go again -- do you have an alternative explanation for the need of sexual reproduction - according to the Grand Theory of Creation and Intelligent Design? What source of evidence do you have for that? I just assumed you're going to use your Bible for supporting your "correct" views, fashionably squeeze and twist some verses to make them sound like "science", or scientifically relevant - it's a very popular trend these days. (See Bob Enyart and the Orion-belt gaffe). Or perhaps you want to use some additional materials? (Shouldn't you guys start to canonize Behe's rants against evolution, you know, just to get more up-to-date materials? )

 

[bob b]

Well I was going to reply until I realized that you won't talk about science and only want to use this thread to bash God.

I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.

 

[sgttomas]

Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction, because it seems to be at odds with the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that losing half the genes every generation would appear to be detrimental to perserving any "beneficial" mutations.

Whatever, Bill O'reiley...o'really?

dubiously,

-sgt.

 

[hatsoff]

Well I was going to reply until I realized that you won't talk about science and only want to use this thread to bash God.

I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.

He's not bashing God, he's bashing your ridiculous belief that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. And if perhaps he could be a bit less aggressive in his posts, you could be a bit less stubborn in your archaic beliefs.

 

[snowy]

bailing out?

bailing out?

You've got to be kidding me.
That's the only argument you're left with? Appeal to force? "Remove the heretic, shut him out"? Pathetic, really.

The OP had an obvious religious agenda. I made you face it and tried to get you to defend whatever theory of Creation/Intelligent Design of species and sexes you can propose instead of the "flawed" theory of evolution -- and now, instead of defending your theory you just go find refuge behind some "fellow" admin that can feel your.. what, frustration?

Frankly, I wouldn't have expected you to admit defeat so soon, and not in such a childish manner. And by banning me just for this critique of your "theory", TOL admins would essentially acknowledge the very same defeat and the demise of such "theory", and that it does not stand up to scrutiny. Which is OK with me .

Besides, your motive for banning me is so poorly constructed -- this thread is in fact in the "Religion" forum -- not in a Science forum. What, questioning the alleged "design", the presupposed motives of your god and the whole creationist "theory" of species/sexes -- is not allowed? Only mocking and dismissing evolutionism is permitted, with nothing for you to have to support/defend here ? You must be kidding.

Well, if this is the "best" TOL can get, so be it.

 

[Johnny]

I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.

What a trip.

 

[Apologist]

Yah, that's totally lame.