A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Magnum (Premo)]

Originally Posted by aps45819

The same could be asked of Adam and Eve's kids

Oh don't say that now people will go around saying the Bible says it's ok to be with your Cousin or Sister

[itsbob (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, we need another of the species, the opposite sex, to do that. .

Understand your point, but

Reproduction wasn't my point, but the evolution of the embryo from a single cell to living breathing human being that can reproduce.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

These are basic biology questions. If you're really interested, take a class.

This thread wasn't started because anyone has a genuine interest in biology. Your questions aren't based on a genuine interest in how reproduction involved. If the questions were genuine, you'd do the research yourself rather than trying to start an argument in the Religion forum.

Marie started this thread to start an argument, most likely because she had read something on another site about how to shut down her "evolutionist friends." It appears that Tirdun's response immediately shut her down instead, or she would have replied by now. She's probably researching now and will pop up with an "I gotcha" to stump the "evolutionists."

You make an interesting point. I'll have to remember that the next time an atheist asks me about Cain's wife, or mankind's free will, or where God came from before the Creation - "look it up, don't start a discussion about it here."

[This_person]

Originally Posted by itsbob

Understand your point, but

Reproduction wasn't my point, but the evolution of the embryo from a single cell to living breathing human being that can reproduce.

You're comparing the growth of a single cell into a multi-celled being with the evolution of a species from pre-horse-and-human-and-whale to horse, human, and whale?

Really?

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by This_person

You make an interesting point. I'll have to remember that the next time an atheist asks me about Cain's wife, or mankind's free will, or where God came from before the Creation - "look it up, don't start a discussion about it here."

If they're only looking to argue without actually looking for knowledge, that's a very good idea.

Of course, as you proved with JPC, you cannot resist the argument no matter how pointless.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

If they're only looking to argue without actually looking for knowledge, that's a very good idea.

There've been very, very few times I've thought someone actually wanted to discuss things from different points of view, with respect for each other, on here. I suspect you feel the same. I've seen people attack each other pretty vigorously, and when proven wrong, just ignore the proof.

Of course, as you proved with JPC, you cannot resist the argument no matter how pointless.

As a parent, I (like you must have, or you wouldn't have said as much to him as you did - looking up his court cases and address and such) took JPC personally. Hating most anything he said for it's shere idiocy became part and parcel with his horrific concepts of parenting.

I don't take the affronts of Tommy, or Tornado, or any other atheist personally. We each have no more idea about what the truth is than anyone else. I choose, from personal experience, to believe the miracles I've witnessed have a reason, and aren't just some random serendipitous act of molecules combining. Trying to get the point across that no one knows, and shouldn't act condescendingly towards others that don't know either has really been my only goal with these folks.

[Marie]

Actually I brought it up to make people think!

I wasnt asking about asexual reproduction, I think that was obvious. So no response was necessary.

Mutations exsist, we lose genes and get varriants of speices like a poodle from the dog species . Evolution suggest the oppsite that we somehow gain genetic information creating tranisitionary species and thats just not true!

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by This_person

The answer given above answers how asexual reproduction could occur. The question being asked is how did single cell division reproduction turn into sexual reproduction. At some point, there had to become a male and female of an living thing. In a mutation/evolution environment, when the first male (or female) came to be, who did that mutated sexual creature reproduce with to survive that species?

The answer covers both. The argument that there must be a distinct male and female of the species to sexually reproduce is incorrect and I used steps starting from asexual reproduction to show this.

The first sexual reproduction, as far as has been discovered, included the same types used by modern corals, tubes, plants and worms. Asexually these creatures can reproduce through budding, division, etc. Evolution in asexual reproduction is limited to genetic mutation and genetic drift but still present.

A species might exist in group environments so the species evolves to asexually reproduce AND transfer material within the group. Each individual has both male (transfer) and female (receiver) parts. Single organism transmission gains the species little, but if every member of the group has both sexes it provides the opportunity for cross transmission. Division of the sexes may evolve to save energy, since offspring will not have to develop the structures of both sexes. Boiled down, the first sexual reproduction was likely within the same organism, then across organisms.

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by Marie

Mutations exsist, we lose genes

Mutations don't destroy genes. They may be advantageous, detrimental or (in most cases) do nothing. One example of a detrimental mutation is our inability to synthesize vitamin C. We share this mutation (in the exact same bit of genetic code) with other primates. In fact, a number of mammals cannot synthesize vitamin C, others have apparently lost and regained the ability. Odd bit of design, there.

get varriants of speices like a poodle from the dog species.

If there's variation, what's to stop continued variation? Change a poodle through reprodution enough times to where it is genetically incompatible with other dogs and is it still a dog? Continue that until it looks like something else, something as far from a Labrador as a fox or bear and has it changed species yet? What stops it from being a new species anyway?

Evolution suggest the oppsite that we somehow gain genetic information

Of course you can. Duplication is fairly common. As soon as one of those duplicates changes further, you've created new information. There are already examples of "new" genetics, bacteria that consume synthetic material (nylon, plastics) are a perfect example of new genetic function.

creating tranisitionary species and thats just not true!

There are no real "transition" species. All species are transitions between what was and what will be. If you find a transitional fossil, it means you've found something between two species already known and adding "transitional" lets other biologists know what you think you've found.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Evolution in asexual reproduction is limited to genetic mutation and genetic drift but still present.

Boiled down, the first sexual reproduction was likely within the same organism, then across organisms.

This is a very good theory, and answers the question with truth - we don't know, but we have a theory. (If this is the gist of what you were saying previously, I apologize - I didn't get it from that post)

So long as we call all recognize that we're talking about theories, without proof, we can all talk on an equal level.