Religion Ask a Christian

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,258
13,264
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
Ive just told you.

I mean actual scientific evidence,
See my post. DNA sequencing is demonstrable scientific evidence.

If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself, then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
It happened about 2 billion years ago. Sexual reproduction generates variation by mixing up the genetic makeup of the parents. Experiments confirm that members of a sexual lineage usually adapt faster than asexual members of the same species when conditions change. Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly.

For example, imagine two individuals in an asexual population that both have a good but different mutation. Because their DNA can’t mix, their descendents end up competing with each other (this is called clonal interference) – you will never get the benefits of both mutations in one individual. In a sexual population, however, both of the good mutations can find their way into one individual. This way, we get the benefit of both, which makes adaptation a lot easier.

This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.
No it wouldn't. Bacteria began exchanging genes via
  • conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms,
  • transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
  • transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)

If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.
See above.

In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.
Define 'new creation'.
 
Last edited:

freo99

Team Captain
Jan 22, 2021
523
455
AFL Club
Fremantle
Ive just told you.



See my post. DNA sequencing is demonstrable scientific evidence.



It happened about 2 billion years ago. Sexual reproduction generates variation by mixing up the genetic makeup of the parents. Experiments confirm that members of a sexual lineage usually adapt faster than asexual members of the same species when conditions change. Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly.

For example, imagine two individuals in an asexual population that both have a good but different mutation. Because their DNA can’t mix, their descendents end up competing with each other (this is called clonal interference) – you will never get the benefits of both mutations in one individual. In a sexual population, however, both of the good mutations can find their way into one individual. This way, we get the benefit of both, which makes adaptation a lot easier.



No it wouldn't. Bacteria began exchanging genes via
  • conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms),
  • transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
  • transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)



See above.



Define 'new creation'.
You dont even understand what I’ve written do you, you haven’t contended with it at all.
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
32,210
12,744
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
When you don't understand science, just walk away from the discussion.

Bacterias are asexual organisms just like viruses (they are not animals nor they are single sex).

The sex you are talking about evolved as a means of coping with the costs of parasitism (referred to as the Red Queen hypothesis). Through recombination of male and female genetic material, parasites are less likely to become super-specialized and virulent on a population (i.e. host genetic diversity hinders the evolution of enhanced parasite infectivity and virulence). This was recently demonstrated in a model system of nematodes, where outcrossing populations of nematodes that co-evolved with a bacterial pathogen were able to persist over time, while selfing nematode populations were driven to extinction.

I can give you lots of materials to read, but i am afraid i will be wasting my time.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,237
40,071
AFL Club
Carlton
Well on the scientific evidence, where is it.
I mean actual scientific evidence, everyone has a barrow to push and generally choose
to believe that which suits them.

Today the vast majority (like the rest of society are atheists) of scientists are not immune from this.
see the famous Richard Lewonton quote re keeping the divine foot out of the door.

Im going to assume you understand the Neo-Darwinian model.

If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
You need to think about this.
You have a single sex which then somehow goes on to be interdependent for reproduction.
eg pairing the chromosomes.

This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.

If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.

In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.
Are you related to darthbards by any chance?
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
32,210
12,744
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Are you related to darthbards by any chance?
My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
19,237
40,071
AFL Club
Carlton
My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?
Do yourself a favour, and look up his posts in the Vegan shitf***ery thread. Watching reasonable posters slowly get frustrated into fury beyond belief at his intransigence and consummate idiocy was genuinely one of the best spectacles Bigfooty has to offer.

Watching him continuously jump the shark was amazing.
 

bfff

Club Legend
Jun 6, 2006
1,622
780
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
]

I quoted Lewontin because he is in print, even though this indicative of probs most atheistic writers
and commentators.

nb if you are an atheist why mention respect.
What do you think it is indicative of?

Why can’t an atheist mention respect? Is belief in gods necessary to understand the value of respect?
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
32,210
12,744
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
What do you think it is indicative of?

Why can’t an atheist mention respect? Is belief in gods necessary to understand the value of respect?
Boston tiger asserted you can't love without God. Now someone said you can't have respect without God. What's next, you can't breathe without God? these guys are really indoctrinated to their eyeballs.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,265
11,760
AFL Club
Carlton
My lord, he was bad, i remember engaging with him on flat earth. These Xtians are just as bad, all deny evolution/science to assert creationist supremacy. I am yet to meet a Christian in this thread who accepts evolution, although in real life it's completely opposite. Are we just unlucky?
Really, all?
I think you’re just being slightly narrow minded; nothing to do with luck.
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,265
11,760
AFL Club
Carlton
He was wrong, on both counts, he doesn't understand science, nor evolution. Bacterias are not animals and they don't have 'sex'.. It's arrogant to point out he doesn't understand science?

Tough luck that you don't see it.
He may have been technically wrong. But it was arrogant of you to suggest that he should walk away from that discussion if his understanding of science isn’t as extensive as yours appears to be: Yet, here you are in a Christian thread, and he’s sharing his seemingly deeper understanding of that doctrine with you.
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
32,210
12,744
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
He may have been technically wrong. But it was arrogant of you to suggest that he should walk away from that discussion if his understanding of science isn’t as extensive as yours appears to be: Yet, here you are in a Christian thread, and he’s sharing his seemingly deeper understanding of that doctrine with you.
He should walk away from the discussion cause he doesn't understand the basics of science. If you get the basics wrong, your entire argument that follows will be **** .He is asking a question and challenging people based on his lack of understanding of the basics of biology. Posters like Roy have gone into great depths trying to make him understand this. I am ok if you accept you are wrong, but asserting others are wrong about evolution while not having the basics of biology right is arrogant.

He wasn't the first one in this thread to do this and he won't be the last one.
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,265
11,760
AFL Club
Carlton
He should walk away from the discussion cause he doesn't understand the basics of science. If you get the basics wrong, your entire argument that follows will be **** .He is asking a question and challenging people based on his lack of understanding of the basics of biology. Posters like Roy have gone into great depths trying to make him understand this. I am ok if you accept you are wrong, but asserting others are wrong about evolution while not having the basics of biology right is arrogant.

He wasn't the first one in this thread to do this and he won't be the last one.
You’d have a point if it was a biology thread, but it’s not: and no indirect relevance doesn’t justify that reaction.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad