Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Christian Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Christian Thread
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1920212223 92>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:04
There is no such thing as ideal in the theory of evolution, which creates a lot of confusion. And Robert, the "reason" for having sexual reproduction is genetic variation. In a changing environment, varying traits are favourable, in order to have at least one portion of the collective offspring surviving in new conditions.

And none of the reasons you mention are evolutionary better - they're called trade-offs, which are an important part of every organism's life history. Again, you've sort of missed the point of how evolution works.

Evolution has no goal or aim. Evolution is not about perfection.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:11
I'm well aware of that (I knew when I posted that someone would tell me evolution doesn't have a goal).  I worded it that way because I don't know of a better way to do so.

My question is still there. 

How in the world did two sexes emerge from one?  Genetic variation does not answer that.

Plus, as far as I can tell, "part" of a reproductive system won't work and would actually be detrimental.  Sexual reproduction could not have evolved over time into what it is today.  At what point did beings become sexual, and how could only partially evolved "packages" create viable offspring (when asexual reproduction was doing it just fine)?
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:16

From Wiki, a number of possible explanations:

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[23] Similarly, it has been propsed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.[25]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[23]

Sex may also be derived from prokaryotic processes. A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26]
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:18
Cannabalism?  Instead of digesting, the DNA gets mixed in?  Sorry if I laugh at that one. LOL

I guess we really are what we eat.  Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:23
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Cannabalism?  Instead of digesting, the DNA gets mixed in?  Sorry if I laugh at that one. LOL

I guess we really are what we eat.  Wink


When we're talking about micro-organisms, it really isn't laugh-worthy Smile
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:11
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Certainly evolution is compatible with the idea of God, but it's not exactly compatible with the Bible (something I'm sorry to say a lot of Christians disregard in the course of constructing their view of ethics), unless you immediately dismiss the first few pages as allegory.

I find that the sequence of events in Genesis is a pretty good parallel to the sequence of events that occured in the non-biblical version. It's not "evolution" - that's just the biological side, but also the creation of the earth, the universe, everything. As a non-Christian I tip my hat at the ancient scolars who recognised the logic that rock came before plants, which in turn came before "lower" living creatures which came before "higher" beings - sea creatures before land animals may have been a fluke guess or intuition, but it is still a remarkable insight.
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


At any rate, I do not believe in evolution (macroevolution at any rate- I have no problem with the idea of gradual changes occurring within a given species).  And yes, I can almost hear the eyes rolling as I say that.  Oh well.  I have been given many more reasons to believe what the Bible says than what evolutionists say.

But there is one thing no evolutionist has ever explained to me.  Oh sure, I know historically Christians have used the complexity of the human eye to show it must be designed, and that the "chance" of evolution could never have created something so intricate.  I even had a professor spend a whole class talking about that one subject (not that his explanation satisfied me, but whatever- he was one of those crappy professors I talked about in the atheist thread anyway).  That's not where I'm going today.

There is a wealth of evidence of the eye in various stages of "evolution" existing in the world to day, from light-seeking plants and micro-organisms, through multifaceted compound eyes, lens-less eyes, to the lensed eye (of course the assumption that the lensed eye is the "final product", that evolution is "goal seeking", is incorrect - all those proto-eyes work perfectly well). What we don't see in both in existing species and in the fossil record are the millions of variations and mutations that didn't work, those that gave no advantage - the evolutionary dead-ends - however those that do not present a disadvantage are there - colour blindness for example -  a genetic "defect" that is passed from mother to son.
 
If the eye was not a product of "evolution" then why does man have a less than perfect eye (when compared to say the Octopus) - we are one evolutionary step behind with a distinct blind-spot where the optic nerve connects to the retina.
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Here is a huge reason why I don't believe in evolution: Evolution posits that life as we know it evolved over millions of years from amoebic, single-celled, asexual organisms.  Beneficial changes occur over time and, as those creatures with the changes reproduce and pass on those good variations, the change is no longer minor, but major.

Wherefore, then, two sexes?

I cannot think of a single reason why the evolutionary process would yield two very distinct genders that must coexist in order to reproduce (and that the reproductive system of man and woman are so perfectly compatible).  Asexual reproduction would, evolutionarily speaking, be ideal- it's safer, no long term gestation periods, that "mothers" don't have to care for their young for a period of time (as mammals must), etc.

I simply do not see how two distinct yet symbiotic sexes could be produced through evolution.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Well 'symbiotic' is not the right term - symbiosis is between two unrelated species, male and female are not different species. (regardless of what we may think Wink)
 
At a biological level I can't see how evolution could work as well as it does without two distinct sexes. Asexual reproduction is beneficial in producing large population growths but cannot adapt to change since there is very low genetic diversity, whereas sexual reproduction results in inherent genetic diversity that can adapt to change. Asexual reproduction does not "work" for higher (ie more complex) organisms - in those vary rare cases where it does happen, sexual reproduction also occurs and the asexually produced offspring are either clones (ie genetically identical to their mothers) or are inviable.
 
 
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:26
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I'm well aware of that (I knew when I posted that someone would tell me evolution doesn't have a goal).  I worded it that way because I don't know of a better way to do so.

My question is still there. 

How in the world did two sexes emerge from one?  Genetic variation does not answer that.

Plus, as far as I can tell, "part" of a reproductive system won't work and would actually be detrimental.  Sexual reproduction could not have evolved over time into what it is today.  At what point did beings become sexual, and how could only partially evolved "packages" create viable offspring (when asexual reproduction was doing it just fine)?
Well - there is no such thing as a partially evolved package - every step along the way has to be a viable species, so the first organisms that reproduced sexually most certainly also produced asexually.
 
What that species had was "an edge" - they were sharing DNA rather than simply dividing it among themselves. If you imagine that out of a billion lifeforms of that species there were some groups that had inhereted one piece of "damaged" DNA from a single asexual parent and another group that inherreted a different "damaged" sequence from a different asexual parent then those two pieces of DNA could never end up in the same individual if reproduction was purely asexual. However, if that species also could swap DNA (ie proto-sexual reproduction) those two DNA chains could meet-up and result in a "mutation" that gave a survival edge.
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:39
The distillation of all that is as follows:

Dean is smart.  Geek

Wink
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:48
LOL and so was my Dad Wink
 
 
 
 
 
 
/edit - I'll leave your thread alone now Rob - I'm not here to convert anyone to evolution, just suggesting possible answers a couple of your direct questions


Edited by Dean - September 18 2009 at 09:52
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:52
At any rate, everything you've described seems perfectly compatible with microevolution (something I have no problem of)- it's how two very different, yet symmetrical, complex, and viable reproductive systems came to be (and of course, why only two- why not 12?)

It would seem there would have to be myriad genetic mutations for all this to occur, and occur such that one was not detrimental to the other, happen twice (for two different sexes), and happen such that the two require each other to reproduce and

On top of two distinct sexes, women are equipped to nurture their children (and this milk doesn't come into production until after she has become pregnant).

Perhaps I am obtuse.  That's fine.  LOL

Forgive me if it is a bit  more believable that God designed it this way rather than accept the idea that x number of accidents occurred over millions of years to generate such astonishing biodiversity.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:54
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

LOL and so was my Dad Wink
 
 
 
 
 
 
/edit - I'll leave your thread alone now Rob - I'm not here to convert anyone to evolution, just suggesting possible answers a couple of your direct questions


LOL

I came from monkeys.  I just screech and throw poo.  LOL

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts- they are always full of levelheaded and insightful observations.  Thumbs Up

Thanks to you and Linus for taking the time to answer me (even if I still don't get it).  LOL
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:27
So far there hasn't been a single creationist "evolution error" that hasn't been either a misunderstanding or simply fabricated data.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - a famous quote which holds a lot of truth.

I could probably discuss this for ages, since I really don't care much about creationism and intelligent design. I'm perfectly aware that this might be considered a form of fundamentalism. Dealing with all the facts available, evolution as truth is where you end up.

But I study biology at uni, on a programme that makes a point of never leaving an evolutionary perspective out, no matter the problem at hand. When I see some proper counter-arguments, this'll turn interesting again. It all boils down to a question on considering the Bible as fact in the end, something I simply could not do. There isn't a conflict between science and faith, but between fact and religion.

Evolution is a lot easier to grasp if the world is 4.5 billion years old instead of 4000 years old for example Big smile.

And Robert, in accepting microevolution you've accepted macroevolution as well. There is no contradiction between the two terms. Once again, a Wiki quote since I'm lazy:

"The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[3] Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[4] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[5]"


But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it Wink



Edited by LinusW - September 18 2009 at 10:30
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:31
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:



I came from monkeys.  I just screech and throw poo.  LOL



Well hey, what can you say, it's something to do. LOL
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:39
Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:


But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it Wink



I wasn't trying to "start" anything- I just know this forum consists of the intellectual elite of the Internet (minus Slartibartfast), and I didn't want to post in the Atheist thread (wouldn't want to disrupt all their whoremongering and debauchery, now would I?  LOLWink), so I thought I'd post my thoughts here and see what others had to say.

And I do completely disagree that micro and macro are the same thing (even though Wikipedia- bastion of scholarship that it is- proves me wrong Wink).

In all seriousness, I appreciate your response.  I just wanted to go fishing and hear what others had to say on the subject. Smile
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:43
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:


But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it Wink



I wasn't trying to "start" anything- I just know this forum consists of the intellectual elite of the Internet (minus Slartibartfast), and I didn't want to post in the Atheist thread (wouldn't want to disrupt all their whoremongering and debauchery, now would I?  LOLWink), so I thought I'd post my thoughts here and see what others had to say.

And I do completely disagree that micro and macro are the same thing (even though Wikipedia- bastion of scholarship that it is- proves me wrong Wink).

In all seriousness, I appreciate your response.  I just wanted to go fishing and hear what others had to say on the subject. Smile


Well, in that case you're just a lost cause LOL
If you're right I can always complain when in hell Wink
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:46
Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:


But that's all for me. I'm not trying to crash you thread or anything, but in all fairness you started it Wink



I wasn't trying to "start" anything- I just know this forum consists of the intellectual elite of the Internet (minus Slartibartfast), and I didn't want to post in the Atheist thread (wouldn't want to disrupt all their whoremongering and debauchery, now would I?  LOLWink), so I thought I'd post my thoughts here and see what others had to say.

And I do completely disagree that micro and macro are the same thing (even though Wikipedia- bastion of scholarship that it is- proves me wrong Wink).

In all seriousness, I appreciate your response.  I just wanted to go fishing and hear what others had to say on the subject. Smile


Well, in that case you're just a lost cause LOL
If you're right I can always complain when in hell Wink


I am!  LOL

And as I've mentioned it before, I don't believe in hell (not the Westernized concept of it, anyway.  Tortured for eternity...what a stupid and unbiblical notion).
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
LinusW View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:47
What's your take on it then? Smile
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 10:58
Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:

What's your take on it then? Smile


I don't discuss religion or politics.  Embarrassed

LOL

The worst-case scenario for an ancient Near Eastern person was not pain or suffering (like it is for most Westerners)- it was shame.  The Bible never talks about the pain of Jesus' crucifixion (though it's always implied), but it does talk about the shame of the cross.

The Bible also talks about reaping what you sow- sin does not cause God physical pain, but brings shame (dishonor) to God's name.

I believe the Bible teaches that those who reject Christ will be put to shame and merely destroyed, not tortured for all eternity.

I also do not believe in "souls" surviving the body after death- believe it or not, I'm a complete materalist. 

If it ain't physical, it ain't. Smile
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 11:10
O man - this is a temptation - not for Crist - but for the Atheist Wink
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
GoldenSpiral View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 18 2009 at 11:43
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by LinusW LinusW wrote:

What's your take on it then? Smile


I don't discuss religion or politics.  Embarrassed

LOL

The worst-case scenario for an ancient Near Eastern person was not pain or suffering (like it is for most Westerners)- it was shame.  The Bible never talks about the pain of Jesus' crucifixion (though it's always implied), but it does talk about the shame of the cross.

The Bible also talks about reaping what you sow- sin does not cause God physical pain, but brings shame (dishonor) to God's name.

I believe the Bible teaches that those who reject Christ will be put to shame and merely destroyed, not tortured for all eternity.

I also do not believe in "souls" surviving the body after death- believe it or not, I'm a complete materalist. 

If it ain't physical, it ain't. Smile

 
I like this idea a lot, since one of the main problems I have with Christian doctrine is the idea of Hell.  A loving God wouldn't create such a thing just for people who think differently.  It's always seemed like more of a propaganda tool for The Church than anything else.
 
This kind of ties in with my growing belief in the doctrine of universal salvation, that is, that Christ died for everyone, and all are saved, not just "believers".  It's not a very popular position, but it's had a few proponents throughout history.
 
I have to bite on this "no souls" thing, though.  How exactly is one "saved eternally" if there is no soul?
http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1920212223 92>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.309 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.