Quote:

The fact is, this is null question, becuase it proceeds from the standpoint that sexual reproduction is the only way for organisms to reproduce. Clearly it's not, as many orgaims reproduce asexually, and many plants can do it both ways.



No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.

Quote:

There is no reason that an organism couldn't have developed sexual reproduction while still being able to reproduce asexaully.



What reason would an organism have to evolve sexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much more efficient?

Quote:

As far the advantages of sexual reproduction, the answer is clear: mixig the genes of two parents creates more genetically diverse organisms, and mitigates most genetic diseases, while still allowing for mutaion to create new variations.

Therefore a better question would be: how could sexual reproduction have NOT evolved?



Ok, so let's say that an asexually reproducing flatworm evolved into a sexually reproducing flat worm. So it evolves a male reproductive organ (MRO). What does it mate with? Let's say it evolves a female reproductive organ (FRO), what does it mate with?

Let's say by some miracle, one evolves male and one evolves female. What are the chances that they'll end up right by each other, as well as having the inclination to mate?

In the transition leading up to working reproductive organs, what are the chances that non-working reproductive organs are going to be useful.

There are numerous changes that must take place in order for sexual reproduction to work. The physical organs not only have to slowly evolve (what is the selective advantage in the meantime?), but they have to evolve to the right size. Then the creature has to produce 'glands' that produce the reproductive cells (two different kinds). Then the correct pathways for the reproductive cells to travel has to develop. Then the hormones must be produced that make the animal not only want to have sex, but that give it the ability to have sex. Then, the brain has to evolve to control the entire process. The correct muscles and blood pathways (or whatever controls the organs) have to be in place. And MOST important of all: the genetic code has to be rewritten to account for the fact that the creature is developing from sex cells.

That's a whole lot of baggage, when its so much easier to just reproduce asexually. Furthermore, just about none of those things are useful without the others. Third of all, the chances of this happening are astronomical, even excluding the impossibility of creative mutations.

Quote:

The fossil record is full of ancestral or transitional forms



There are no transitional forms. Evolutionists admitted this when they came up with 'punctuated equilibrium'. If there is a transitional form, I'd love to know what it is.

Homo erectus? The main reason it was thought to be below human was because of its brain size, which we later discovered was within the range of the average european (that's not meant to be an insult, aborigines also have small brains, but are no less intelligent).

Quote:

I dont understand this one at all...what does biogenesis have to do with superman?



Its a metaphor. Its meant to be a parallel to the teaching of abiogenesis as fact in schools, when there's absolutely no evidence for it. Its just as ridiculous as using science to speculate on what it would be like to be superman. There's no point in abusing science to speculate on either of them, because neither of them will ever happen.

Quote:

The fact is biogenesis has two distinct meanings. One is the simple definition of creating life from life, as occurs in the reproduction of an organism. The other is th more abstract; the theory that life can ONLY arise from other life--the contrary theory being abiogenesis; the theory that life can someitmes arise fomr non-life.

Most modern scientists believe that abiogenesis is possible. But it has little to do with the origin of the species through natural selection. This is a quesition that may or may not be ultimately resolved, and it is of philosophical or academic interest, but may play little part in our understanding of the processes of evolutiojn of already living organisms.



A silent admission that there is no evidence.

Quote:

In fact you have shown no such thing. While you may delude yourself into beliveing it, most of us are not se easliy fooled. While there are indee insertions and adiitions in the genetic code, there dont even need to be for evlotuoin to proceed. This is because even a deletion or a rearranging of the sequance can have effects on the evetual outcome... therefore any change is novel, and can have evolutionary impact.




Yeah, sickle cell anemia is a very novel change. The statement that any change is simply change is more of a reflection of your relativistic view of the world than of the actual scientific evidence.

Even in your trophy example of delta 32, it was caused by the deletion of base pairs. Its hard to imagine the deletion of data writing anything new.

Quote:

While MANY poeple who accept evolution also believe in god, this has no bearing on wether evolution is true or not, and is clearly a pedestrian arguement that should have been left at home.



That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.

Quote:

uhh... not sure how to respond here. What astronomy textbook have you been reading?




The sun really isn't a good argument. The debate isn't resolved yet.

I don't want to restate all the garbage on the escaping moon. Talk origins has a rebuttle to it, but another website goes more in depth, and resolves the problem of a changing escape velocity. The moon, at this time is leaving orbit at a rate of about 4 cm or about 1.5 inches per year.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v4i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i5f.htm

I don't suppose you'll actually read this articles, but there's no point in me being unable to make half the argument they make.

In short, the earth-moon system is much younger than 4.6 billion years old.

Quote:

Lizards didnt turn into mammals. Please please learn some of the BASIC science here before attempting to argue against the theory.




Excuse my use of the word lizard. Reptiles evolved into mammals, supposedly. But it really changes nothing.

You can disagree but then why do all of these people seem to agree?

http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~neman/mammal%20evolution/Evolution.html
http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

Eh, I was going to find a whole list of websites, but its not worth the energy. Reptiles supposedly became mammals, but that's besides the point. Apparently breasts appeared out of nowhere. That's the point. You can't explain this logically and without evoking supserstition (and irrational belief in chance).

Quote:

However, this is an old trick question, "what came first: the chicken or the egg?".

The answer is your word for chicken has not been defined, so there is no answer. This applies to many of your points, like the probblem of haert evolution, eye evolution, sex, etc, etc. ad infinitum. It comes from a basic lack of understanding of how logic, language, and abstract thinking deal with concrete things in the real world.




Yeah, this is a really complicated way of saying, "I don't really know how it could have been possible."

Quote:

Evolutionary theory--and science in general--is really about liberating man from ignorance, superstition, and fear of the dark unknown, based on the only tools we have; the ability to observe the world, and draw conclusions from that.




There you go, redefining things like a typical evolutionists. Science isn't about liberating man form the unknown. Its about making the unknown the known. About explaining the natural world. You make it seem like science is some kind of savior, its not, its just observation and testing. Although, it is nice to see you admit that you deify science.

Quote:

You are still young, and obviously bright and curious. But I must tell you there comes a time when you simply cannot answer all questions with "common-sense" logic, or "common knoweledge" that your parents or church leader may teach you.



I don't have questions that a theologian cannot answer. I have questions that humanists can't answer.

Quote:

You are best advised to seek to the opinions of experts who have actually studied these things at length. Learn the facts, dont just recycle factoids from propaganda, or rehash ancient arguements that have long since been been dealt with.



A lot of what I study is from prominent scientists who happen to believe in some form of creation. Their credentials are extensive, and they are the experts who have actually studied these things at length.

Quote:

There is a lot out there in the world that is far more interesting than worrying about whether God kept your family together



I'm not worried about kept my family together. Its readily apparent. I don't have to give it more than ten second's thought.

Quote:

what happens to you after you die.



I don't know, I'm gonna be dead for a pretty long time. If salvation is real, I can't imagine anything more important than helping as many people receive salvation as I can before I die, and then receiving that salvation myself.

Quote:

Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.



Ah, yes. The accusation that I "Sit around in my dreary home brooding." That I don't accept reality, and that I only interpret the world around me based on what I want it to be, or that I only believe what I'm comforable being told.

This is the most arrogant thing you've said yet, if only because you seemed to try and hide it in behind mock friendliness.

To take this to its logical conclusion you must then believe that you are much better than me because you, "aren't sitting around in your dreary home brooding, you went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be."

You're so much better than me, Matt. I'm just a simple leftover from the middle ages. Thank you for saving me from myself.

edit: I might be mistaking what you're saying. In which case, I'm grateful that you don't mean to attack me.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/19/06 06:02.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."