Evolutionists: Please Explain

This too, has always been my biggest complaint agaist evolution.

BTW, isn't there supposed to tbe a creation/evolution forum?

 

I doubt you would listen. You made your hit and run post earlier about whales with the ridiculous claim that scientists say that whales evolved from wolves. When the error was pointed out, you did not even bother to produce the reference you were asked for more than once. You seemed to think it did not even matter that you had posted bogus information. And you have not even tried to respond to the brief outline of what really happened.

I'll try and get to your question in this thread tomorrow when I get up. I must have a side of me that enjoys punishment to to still be engaged with this discussion with a someone who has their mind so made up and such dislike of someone who doesn't think like they do. *SIGH* Before I go and try to find some good information, the back of my mind seems to tell me sexual reproduction grew out of gene swapping a really long time ago. As I remember, some (all?) bacteria can even swap some bits of DNA back and forth. I think it is called horizontal gene transfer. From two cells swapping some genetic material you can move towards two cells actually combining all (well half at least) of their DNA to form a new offspring. But without sexual differentation. Blah blah balh. You get to multicell organisms that produce special cells for this reproduction. Eventually moving towards multicellular creatures that not only make special reproductive cells, but that also divide these into eggs and sperm. Blah blah blah. Finally on towards special parts to carry our the reproduction. Anyhow, just an outline of what I seem to remember at 2 AM from the back of my mind. I can likely do better tomorrow afternoon if you really want to know. Reply if you do.

 

She Eagle came up with that reference:
"...evolved from terrestrial 4-legged meat eaters resembling wolves."
An evolutionist said that, not Mark. It is, indeed, ridiculous.

 

There is this rock in South Dakota that resembles George Washington. But it is not George Washington.

There was creature about the size and shape of a wolf whose descendants became whales and dolphins. But the creature was not a wolf. The creature had hoofs. Have you even seen a wolf walking around on hoofs? It had the ankle of animals like hippos and deer. Wolves have a completely different ankle. It had a rather unique ear structure, much different from the structure of a wolf or any similar creature. Good grief people, please read what is posted. "Resembled", "Resembled", "Resembled" Do I need to find some more specific differences between wolves and Pakicetids or the common traits of Pakicetids and the other animals it is actually closely related to?

This kind of seemingly willfull misunderstanding is very frustrating.

 

Your attacks against Mark on this issue have been answered it is childish for you to continue this. You have done nothing but split hairs on this wolf/whale thing get over it.
Murph

 

Heard and understood.

I apologize for continuing for too long and too crass with my objections.

 

I once did a series of mathematical simulations investigating the connection between sexual differentiation and speciation. These two areas of evolution seem to be synergistically linked. Anyway, although it doesn't address what may have happened historically, the math is quite interesting and plausible.

-Neil

 

I imagine it will be as observable as the 6-day creation was. Oh, wait...

SEC, who is not a believer in evolution, but still likes to hear a good debate.

 

Which, when distilled, means that some cells rubbed against on another, exchanged a little grease, and eventually sprouted sex organs. So, what better scenario could I have expected a guy who started with the preconceived idea of evolution to come up with?

Oh, I forgot, you actually have some factual, observable evidence that this happened. I'll be waiting to hear this one......snicker, snicker.

Mark Osgatharp [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Hey Mark, Sex is really good for evolution. It mixes up genes and allows good genes to be brought together that appeared in widely separated places. It allows bad genes to be swapped away and replaced by good ones from another organism. It is small wonder, given its advantages for evolution, that sex should be selected for and persist over the eons.

On the other hand, what possible reason for sex is their from the crationist point of view? Over a mere 10,000 year history, there isn't enough time for sex to make much difference in the genetic history of an entire species, especially slow breeders like humans.

So the existance of sex itself is, in a way, an evidence for evolution!

 

Well, just to let you know.

I did some poking around, and the basic story is somethng like what I said. Sex is believed to evolved in very early Eucaryotes. There were some references to genetic information to support this, but I could not find what that was. The unfortunate thing for my short look for you more information is that most of the good stuff is tied up in journals right now. I don't know if you have ever tried to look for papers from journals, but all you can get for free are the abstracts. They want big money for the rest. But back to the subject. Early single celled Eucaryotes are believed to have developed sexual reproduction. Two cells dividing from their diploid stage to their haploid stage and then combining their haploids to form a new diploid stage. Since this happened at a chromosonal level, I do not think you can really ever expect to find any fossil evidence of this. But as I said, there is some genetic evidence, I just could not find it specifically. Once you have the single celled Eucaryotes reproducing sexually, then the rest (multicellular organisms, sexual organs, sexually differentiated cells and organisms) has a starting point and millions of years to develop. And I think the advantages of sexual reproduction have already been pointed out. Mixing genes to promote diversity. Allowing natural selection to weed out bad genes and spread good genes. And so on. My look was brief and I do not feel like investing a lot more time right now.

 

Aw c'mon, heresy hunter, God USED evolution.

 

First, you gotta promise me one thing. Promise me that as I fulfill your request and present a possible scenario, you will not then turn around and accuse me of merely offering a conjecture.

OH, I also await your conjecture as to why we were created with sex in the absense of any need for evolution. What else is it possibly good for?

 

The fact that you associate evolution with ADD shows that you know absolutely nothing about either. Attention Deficit Disorder is a very real disorder that seriously afflicts many children. There is help out there available, but for you to claim that it somehow is something that scientists just "made up" is quite ludicrous.

 

Reproduction is certainly possible without sex. All you have to do is duplicate the genetic structure of a single parent. So why bother with sex? What possible reason is there for all that fuss and bother?