Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Given the advantages of asexual reproduction, how (or why) did sexual reproduction originate? Why is sexual reproduction the predominate method?

How or why? The same way freckles, red hair, down syndrome, partial color blindness, excessive body hair growth, and a million other mutations occur. Cell division.

Originally posted by Godzilla Rulz
How or why? The same way freckles, red hair, down syndrome, partial color blindness, excessive body hair growth, and a million other mutations occur. Cell division.

Asexual reproduction merely produces clones. What I want to know is how, or more importantly why sexual reproduction appears to prevail over asexual reproduction, given asexual reproductions obvious advantages.

you have it wrong, sexual reproduction provides many advantages over asexual reproduction

such as, the ability to eliminate flaws in the genetic code, more variance in the offspring, etc

but ya, its a JIA thread...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Asexual reproduction merely produces clones. What I want to know is how, or more importantly why sexual reproduction appears to prevail over asexual reproduction, given asexual reproductions obvious advantages.

The only real advantage in asexual reproduction is a greater number of offspring/organisms. But that also runs the risk of food source depletion/overcrowding.

There is a huge downside to asexual reproduction though, fewer gene variation and therefore a much greater risk to disease and defect. Similar as to why too much inbreeding is not good in sexual reproduction.

Basic H.S. biology, dude.

To answer your question, Evolution. Sexual reproduction produced species more fit for survival in a given setting. So we **** our mates, instead of ourselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
The only real advantage is asexual reproduction is a greater number of offspring/organisms

I don't even know if that is true...

not that asexual organisms don't produce more offspring, just that I don't think it is a rule or anything. Theoretically, thousands of eggs could be laid at once, like how fish do it.

thinking about it, I suppose the only type of asexual reproduction I know of is cellular division, so I probably shouldn't talk

Originally posted by inimalist
you have it wrong, sexual reproduction provides many advantages over asexual reproduction

such as, the ability to eliminate flaws in the genetic code, more variance in the offspring, etc

but ya, its a JIA thread...

But...how did males and females (according to evolutionary theory) come to exist separately?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't even know if that is true...

not that asexual organisms don't produce more offspring, just that I don't think it is a rule or anything. Theoretically, thousands of eggs could be laid at once, like how fish do it.

thinking about it, I suppose the only type of asexual reproduction I know of is cellular division, so I probably shouldn't talk

Why I said "possible". It takes two humans to produce one offspring, while it take one earthworm to produce one earthworm.

As you noted, there are species (fish, insects, arachnids etc) that lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs. Though I do think the main reason why species that lay vast quantities of eggs is most likely due to an extremely high mortality rate of the young from egg to sexually active adult.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But...how did males and females (according to evolutionary theory) come to exist separately?

Mutation. Likely trillions of tiny little mutations over extremely long lengths of time.

Originally posted by Robtard
The only real advantage in asexual reproduction is a greater number of offspring/organisms. But that also runs the risk of food source depletion/overcrowding.

There is a huge downside to asexual reproduction though, fewer gene variation and therefore a much greater risk to disease and defect. Similar as to why too much inbreeding is not good in sexual reproduction.

Basic H.S. biology, dude.

To answer your question, Evolution. Sexual reproduction produced species more fit for survival in a given setting. So we **** our mates, instead of ourselves.

That doesn't explain how the asexual cell evolved into advanced, male and female organisms with the capacity to reproduce.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That doesn't explain how the asexual cell evolved into advanced, male and female organisms with the capacity to reproduce.

Originally posted by Robtard
Mutation. Likely trillions of tiny little mutations over extremely long lengths of time.

Originally posted by inimalist

but ya, its a JIA thread...

Originally posted by Robtard
Why I said "possible". It takes two humans to produce one offspring, while it take one earthworm to produce one earthworm.

As you noted, there are species (fish, insects, arachnids etc) that lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs. Though I do think the main reason why species that lay vast quantities of eggs is most likely due to an extremely high mortality rate of the young from egg to sexually active adult.

couldn't agree more

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But...how did males and females (according to evolutionary theory) come to exist separately?

I think that is still an open question actually, I'm not a geneticist though, so there are probably more appropriate places to ask this question, if you were actually interested in the answer...

are you suggesting that the inability to explain absolutely every part of evolutionary history is evidence that evolution didn't happen?

here JIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Originally posted by Robtard
Mutation. Likely trillions of tiny little mutations over extremely long lengths of time.

Mutations are mostly harmful not beneficial.
Besides, what is the mechanism for mutation? What causes mutation?

Originally posted by inimalist
couldn't agree more



I think that is still an open question actually, I'm not a geneticist though, so there are probably more appropriate places to ask this question, if you were actually interested in the answer...

are you suggesting that the inability to explain absolutely every part of evolutionary history is evidence that evolution didn't happen?

My objective is to stimulate honest inquiry. This is a pivotal question that should have a plausible, scientific answer if it is a fact.

Originally posted by inimalist
here JIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

I'm not interested in reading Wikipedia. Why don't you make an attempt to explain to me in your own words.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations are mostly harmful not beneficial.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html



Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Besides, what is the mechanism for mutation? What causes mutation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation#Causes

JIA: have you heard of wikipedia?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations are mostly harmful not beneficial.

Besides, what is the mechanism for mutation? What causes mutation?

And the ones that aren't is what Evolution is about. A gazelle born slower than it's kin isn't likely going to live and pass it's "slow gene" on.

There are several theories. Mutations happen now, could be random, could be environmental factors, could be viruses could be a combo, could be something else. They do happen though, this is a fact. There's a fairly sound theory that viruses are the fire for Evolutionary change, that and the environment.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My objective is to stimulate honest inquiry. This is a pivotal question that should have a plausible, scientific answer if it is a fact.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I'm not interested in reading Wikipedia. Why don't you make an attempt to explain to me in your own words.

1 - I'm not a geneticist or even a biologist. If you have questions about evolution and neurology, the brain, psychology, etc, I can probably give you a better answer

2 - you just flat out admitted you wont read the answer if provided

3 - my history of debating with you is filled with spending far too much time explaining concepts you will hand wave away. If you want to discuss, please show some indication that you are willing to put in the effort

Originally posted by inimalist
1 - I'm not a geneticist or even a biologist. If you have questions about evolution and neurology, the brain, psychology, etc, I can probably give you a better answer

2 - you just flat out admitted you wont read the answer if provided

3 - my history of debating with you is filled with spending far too much time explaining concepts you will hand wave away. If you want to discuss, please show some indication that you are willing to put in the effort

Sharing information is not debating. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to exchange information.

Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed information; it can be written by anyone, so, I take it with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Sharing information is not debating. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to exchange information.

what information are you sharing?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed information; it can be written by anyone, so, I take it with a grain of salt.

LOL

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Originally posted by Robtard
And the ones that aren't is what Evolution is about. A gazelle born slower than it's kin isn't likely going to live and pass it's "slow gene" on.

There are several theories. Mutations happen now, could be random, could be environmental factors, could be viruses could be a combo, could be something else. They do happen though, this is a fact. There's a fairly sound theory that viruses are the fire for Evolutionary change, that and the environment.

In what way are viruses the fire for evolution?

A virus needs a complex, already living host in order to exist because it is a parasite.

did you look anything up on pubmed yet?

Originally posted by inimalist
did you look anything up on pubmed yet?

Can you just explain it to me instead? I wanna see what you know.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In what way are viruses the fire for evolution?


one example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21454789

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can you just explain it to me instead? I wanna see what you know.



Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not a geneticist though

Originally posted by inimalist
1 - I'm not a geneticist or even a biologist. If you have questions about evolution and neurology, the brain, psychology, etc, I can probably give you a better answer

I don't know, however, the information is there if you put in even a modest amount of effort to find it

Originally posted by inimalist
one example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21454789

or another:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21517839

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In what way are viruses the fire for evolution?

A virus needs a complex, already living host in order to exist because it is a parasite.

As I said, it's a theory, I skimmed over it long ago, was interesting though. I'm sure you can find it if you're really interested.

And?

one word

DIVERSITY.

another phrase

MEIOTIC CONTROL OF PROPAGATION OF CELL DAMAGE

the first increases the diversity in the gene pool making it so that more individuals have the diversity to survive a change in enviornment and produce offspring of their own.

the second decreases the damage that accumulates through mutations and faulty gene transfer and gene reproduction again increasing the odds of the wellbeing of the offspring.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
one word

DIVERSITY.

another phrase

MEIOTIC CONTROL OF PROPAGATION OF CELL DAMAGE

the first increases the diversity in the gene pool making it so that more individuals have the diversity to survive a change in enviornment and produce offspring of their own.

the second decreases the damage that accumulates through mutations and faulty gene transfer and gene reproduction again increasing the odds of the wellbeing of the offspring.

The first? The first what increases diversity in the gene pool? Are you saying diversity increases the diversity?

Here's the thread topic again: How does evolution explain males and females?

I don't know that your response answers the question.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The first? The first what increases diversity in the gene pool? Are you saying diversity increases the diversity?

Here's the thread topic again: How does evolution explain males and females?

I don't know that your response answers the question.

nope. two beings giving their genes in combination to create one offspring increases the diversity of the genes in the offspring. this is one of the reasons we can create antibiotics to combate certain bacteria, because they are arent very varied in their numbers. furthermore, the fact of dominant and recessive genes has a tendency to minimize traits that are harmful to the offspring.

JIA, there are entire books, or at the very least chapters in books, devoted to this.

If you're actually interested in learning the answers to these from geneticists, find the materials on your own. They are not hard to track down. A google, amazon, or other search will readily produce them. Read, learn, grow. It's fun.

If, however, you want incomplete sound bite answers from evolutionarily literate though hardly expert KMC members, that you can then throw into question in your own mind because they don't answer all your questions and concerns (and never could), then by all means keep posting. Clearly one is less futile.

Because frankly, given your history, this seems less like a legitimate scientific inquiry, and more a veiled attempt to make it seem like we can't really prove evolution. I may be wrong. But we've all read the boy who cried wolf...you might actually see a wolf this time, but nobody's listening. Thus, comments like this:

Originally posted by inimalist
but ya, its a JIA thread...

...in any case, your original question is flawed because it presupposes a "better" form of reproduction, and also presumes that if one indeed were demonstrably better that all organisms would adhere to the superior design. Random mutations over time accounts for a lot in evolution, so the fact that one is predominant may have nothing to do with it being better, and simply more to do with it having happened at an opportune time in evolutionary history. We are usually not optimally designed.

That said, sexual reproduction has lots of advantages, as extrapolated upon by many in this thread.

JIA's still here? LOL!

jia, like dandruff, is ALWAYS here.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope. two beings giving their genes in combination to create one offspring increases the diversity of the genes in the offspring. this is one of the reasons we can create antibiotics to combate certain bacteria, because they are arent very varied in their numbers. furthermore, the fact of dominant and recessive genes has a tendency to minimize traits that are harmful to the offspring.

How does evolution explain males and females?

Originally posted by Digi
JIA, there are entire books, or at the very least chapters in books, devoted to this.

If you're actually interested in learning the answers to these from geneticists, find the materials on your own. They are not hard to track down. A google, amazon, or other search will readily produce them. Read, learn, grow. It's fun.

If, however, you want incomplete sound bite answers from evolutionarily literate though hardly expert KMC members, that you can then throw into question in your own mind because they don't answer all your questions and concerns (and never could), then by all means keep posting. Clearly one is less futile.

Because frankly, given your history, this seems less like a legitimate scientific inquiry, and more a veiled attempt to make it seem like we can't really prove evolution. I may be wrong. But we've all read the boy who cried wolf...you might actually see a wolf this time, but nobody's listening. Thus, comments like this:



...in any case, your original question is flawed because it presupposes a "better" form of reproduction, and also presumes that if one indeed were demonstrably better that all organisms would adhere to the superior design. Random mutations over time accounts for a lot in evolution, so the fact that one is predominant may have nothing to do with it being better, and simply more to do with it having happened at an opportune time in evolutionary history. We are usually not optimally designed.

That said, sexual reproduction has lots of advantages, as extrapolated upon by many in this thread.


Give me the benefit of the doubt Digi. My intentions are always honorable.

I just want a simple explanation from an evolutionist/atheist as to how they account for the existence of males and females.

I have no problem explaining the existence of males and females from my vantage point. I guess I assumed that evolutionist/atheist wouldn't either.

I might be wrong but I thought the underlying principle of evolutionary theory maintains that organisms are constantly evolving into more complex, superior forms than their predecessors. So why keep using asexual reproduction if sexual reproduction is better?

you know whats sad JIA. you have been one of the most uniformly prolific posters on KMC for the last 5 years(outside the comic threads). all that time and energy spent bullshitting and wasting other people's mind and energy. if your had put all that time and effort into actually STUDYING the subjects that you so like to annoy other people over, you could have easily gotten a masters/post graduate degree in them. e.g. evolutionary biology/theoretical mathematics/philosophy/formal logic/astrophysics etc. just pick one.

i say this because youre understanding of evolution is just as infantile today as the day you started posted 5 odd years ago{i.e. asking why theres still asexual reproduction when sexual reproduction is "superior". pretty similar to aksing why theres still apes if humans came from evoluion)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you know whats sad JIA. you have been one of the most uniformly prolific posters on KMC for the last 5 years(outside the comic threads). all that time and energy spent bullshitting and wasting other people's mind and energy. if your had put all that time and effort into actually STUDYING the subjects that you so like to annoy other people over, you could have easily gotten a masters/post graduate degree in them. e.g. evolutionary biology/theoretical mathematics/philosophy/formal logic/astrophysics etc. just pick one. Or even theology would've been a better use of time.

getting a grad degree in 5 years would be pretty impressive though, if you started with a bachelors I mean

it took me five to get my BA

Originally posted by leonheartmm
one word

DIVERSITY.

another phrase

MEIOTIC CONTROL OF PROPAGATION OF CELL DAMAGE

the first increases the diversity in the gene pool making it so that more individuals have the diversity to survive a change in enviornment and produce offspring of their own.

the second decreases the damage that accumulates through mutations and faulty gene transfer and gene reproduction again increasing the odds of the wellbeing of the offspring.

Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen. Only a small part of the DNA strand is expressed in sexual reproduction. When more is expressed, you may not have "new genetic material," but you do have the biological equivalent.

I saw a science show on tv a while back that was dedicated to ^that very question. One of the professors interviewed theorized that the two sexes began to come about way back when, when one-celled organism were the only lifeforms. The first "males" (according to this hypothesis) were cells that engulfed, or otherwise 'injected' their DNA into other cells, thus encouraging genetic variation in future generations. Obviously this theory isn't too popular with the PC crowd, because it seems to imply that being male inherently means that one is predatory. But is one of the theories out there. Its not official, but its also not entirely discounted. Its a "maybe" theory.

Originally posted by Quark_666
JIA's still here? LOL!

He's like airplane food...you just can't keep him down.

I could imagine having organisms expert at one thing is of huge benefit to them. Take an bunch of small organisms some of them are great at passing on their genes to other organisms, some of them are excellent at using these passed on genes and create new organisms, and some of them are okay at either. In time mainly the ones best at their task pairing with the ones best at the complementary task will pass on their genes, which will lead to even better and more specialized organisms. For these organisms it will be a much larger cost to be both able to incredibly well pass on their genes and shittily be able to do something with genes passed to them so that they will eventually drop the ability they are bad at completely, creating two distinct types of organisms within the species who can only reproduce together. Over millions of years that will become more and more distinct and voila males and females.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I might be wrong but I thought the underlying principle of evolutionary theory maintains that organisms are constantly evolving into more complex, superior forms than their predecessors.

You are mistaken. Evolution does not state that organisms have to become more complex or generally superior. It only states that in time, the traits most beneficial to the organisms life and ability to reproduce within the environment that organism lives in have the best chance to stay and develop further. A most logical idea, if you think about it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.

in fact, changes in offspring are often the result of the activation of previously dormant genetic material that represents past organisms, creating variance based on what was effective in the past for the environment organisms are facing today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

You know, I have to agree with JIA when he says that he doesn't care or trust what Wikipedia says.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/michael_wiki.png

Wikipedia is on average extremely accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)(lol). And what's more, very in depth. Though I understand your worries, in JIA's case (i.e. feigning interest in actual knowledge on the subject, but refusal of even going the first step) it's just ridiculous. And if he didn't want wikipedia, he could have gone to the sources cited on Wikipedia.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You know, I have to agree with JIA when he says that he doesn't care or trust what Wikipedia says.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/michael_wiki.png

you have the requisite background in genetics for real research to be meaningful?

like, there are good intro books on the subject of epigenetics (what Darwin got wrong is the one I would recommend off the top of my head), but you can't really link those

further, rather than glib hand waving, why not find the parts of the well cited wiki page that you know are inaccurate, rather than just irrelevant generalizations?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.


ofcourse that just shows the extant of your ignorance doesnt it. the entirety of the computer use and programming languages are based on binary code, i.e. 0s and 1s. and combination thereoff. are you willing to say then that since the 1960s NO new information has been created in the worlds of computer or databases or the internet or computer languages?

its the same argument with dna. dna consists of a tertiary code, i.e. three basic units that CREATE information. and the infinite combinations of the three you can make as the chain length increases. (its similar to mathematics actually. theres only 10 numbers. 0-9. but their combinations are infinity and hence the set of natural numbers is infinite.

and please stop using terms like information species and macroevolution, i dont think im being elitist in saying that you havent a CLUE as to what the hell any of those things mean.

QM: sorry, I think that came off a bit more confrontational than I wanted. my point is more that, outside of Wikipedia, what would you trust?

I can't post an entire book or text book chapter (mostly unavailable online and too long to expect people to read) and other websites are arguably more likely to contain bias than is wiki (at least they have discussion and have changed their editing policy since that episode of the office).

we could both use pubmed to find abstracts, but scientific papers rarely are of the theme "I'm goin to explain a concept in simple, non-jargon". I don't have a degree in biology, so epigenetics papers that deal with the expression of gene c342 over progressive generations based on acces to various protiens ian going to mean much to me either, and even if it did, scientific papers are by design, of a much more narrow scope than you would want in an introduction to a topic.

so like, tell me, what kind of source you would prefer. outside of Wikipedia, where do you find something that:
- is written for non-specialists
- introduces and summarizes a topic
- is available for free online
- is short
- contains citations and at least some form of peer review

because if I knew of such a source, I would certainly use it

Freebase?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Freebase?

no thanks, I normally just snort

EDIT: the freebase article for epigenetics is a snip-it of the Wiki intro, then a link to wiki XD

wikipedia, outside a wholistic understanding of peer reviewed literature, is probability wise, the overwhelmingly preferrable bet to get a basic understanding of concepts compared to nearly anything else out there.

having said that, if malicious posters or groups get involved in changing data then you could be led astray i.e. scientology, mormonism, islam, some political figures, come companies etc

i would usually ask someone making fun of wiki to produce their "superior" sources. plus i think wiki reading is awesome for laymen.

Originally posted by inimalist
no thanks, I normally just snort

EDIT: the freebase article for epigenetics is a snip-it of the Wiki intro, then a link to wiki XD

lol, yeah, there's nothing comparable to wikipedia at the moment. Even the 30 thick volume encyclopedias just don't compare.

wikipedia is an accurate source of information on many varied topics

people who dismiss it are naive

when you read wikipedia check the sources for confirmation

yeah anyone can add to wikipedia, but anyone can write a book or a magazine or newspaper just the same

use your commone sense to separate bullshit from fact and truth

actually, wikipedia has changed their policy, not anyone can just go edit, afaik

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Mutations do not produce new, genetic information. All it does is rearrange existing information. A species population needs new, genetic information for macroevolution to occur. Otherwise, all you have is variation within a species, which is what is supposed to happen.

Have you ever heard of anagrams? The world is full of examples of rearranging a set of things to produce something new. I can take the word "evangelists" (randomly selected) and produce the phrase "evils agents" without adding anything new into the mix. Or take a piece of clay and make a sculpture, now punch the clay, you have a new sculpture but no new clay.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
yeah anyone can add to wikipedia, but anyone can write a book or a magazine or newspaper just the same

The difference is that the person who wrote the magazine or book is known so we can learn about their biases, while wikipedia editors (unless they're particularly fervent) are not.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
use your commone sense to separate bullshit from fact and truth

That's a really bad method.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The difference is that the person who wrote the magazine or book is known so we can learn about their biases, while wikipedia editors (unless they're particularly fervent) are not.



That's a really bad method.

I know right. Everyone and their mom can edit that shit. At least with old fashion book-encyclopedias I know 2 things: a) that it comes from a reputable source, and b) no one will break into my house, erase the pages and then write something that they made up. Wikipedia might be useful for fun trivia, like; where a certain actor was born or what year a certain album was released. But things like science and history? I think I'll pass.

There's a reason that no respectable academic institution will accept that site as a source.

hand waving

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know right. Everyone and their mom can edit that shit. At least with old fashion book-encyclopedias I know 2 things: a) that it comes from a reputable source, and b) no one will break into my house, erase the pages and then write something that they made up. Wikipedia might be useful for fun trivia, like; where a certain actor was born or what year a certain album was released. But things like science and history? I think I'll pass.

There's a reason that no respectable academic institution will accept that site as a source.

How does being wrong feel? Does it feel good?

Originally posted by inimalist
QM: sorry, I think that came off a bit more confrontational than I wanted. my point is more that, outside of Wikipedia, what would you trust?

I can't post an entire book or text book chapter (mostly unavailable online and too long to expect people to read) and other websites are arguably more likely to contain bias than is wiki (at least they have discussion and have changed their editing policy since that episode of the office).

we could both use pubmed to find abstracts, but scientific papers rarely are of the theme "I'm goin to explain a concept in simple, non-jargon". I don't have a degree in biology, so epigenetics papers that deal with the expression of gene c342 over progressive generations based on acces to various protiens ian going to mean much to me either, and even if it did, scientific papers are by design, of a much more narrow scope than you would want in an introduction to a topic.

so like, tell me, what kind of source you would prefer. outside of Wikipedia, where do you find something that:
- is written for non-specialists
- introduces and summarizes a topic
- is available for free online
- is short
- contains citations and at least some form of peer review

because if I knew of such a source, I would certainly use it

You.

I would prefer you and your knowledge to be my source. I want to know what you know.

lulz

why?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you ever heard of anagrams? The world is full of examples of rearranging a set of things to produce something new. I can take the word "evangelists" (randomly selected) and produce the phrase "evils agents" without adding anything new into the mix. Or take a piece of clay and make a sculpture, now punch the clay, you have a new sculpture but no new clay.

That's very simplistic; however, we are really talking about complex organisms not words or letters. Nevertheless, I'll play.

Even if you rearrange the letters in the word evangelists, to me, a better example of something new would be going from words to something concrete. Rearranging letters to me is more like microevolution--which is a scientific fact. But going from letters or words to, say a pencil, represents new information. This would be an example of macroevolution. Going from one thing to something totally different.

This probably makes no sense to you. Oh, well, it doesn't make much sense to me either.

Originally posted by inimalist
lulz

why?

It's more convenient for me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That's very simplistic; however, we are really talking about complex organisms not words or letters. Nevertheless, I'll play.

Even if you rearrange the letters in the word evangelists, to me, a better example of something new would be going from words to something concrete. Rearranging letters to me is more like microevolution--which is a scientific fact. But going from letters or words to, say a pencil, represents new information. This would be an example of macroevolution. Going from one thing to something totally different.

This probably makes no sense to you. Oh, well, it doesn't make much sense to me either.



no it isnt. the fact is that ALL living things {including different species} are made up of only three bases of dna A U G. so infact the dna of EVERYTHING is one arrangement or another of these bases, so it PRECISELY explains MACROevolution too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I could imagine having organisms expert at one thing is of huge benefit to them. Take an bunch of small organisms some of them are great at passing on their genes to other organisms, some of them are excellent at using these passed on genes and create new organisms, and some of them are okay at either. In time mainly the ones best at their task pairing with the ones best at the complementary task will pass on their genes, which will lead to even better and more specialized organisms. For these organisms it will be a much larger cost to be both able to incredibly well pass on their genes and shittily be able to do something with genes passed to them so that they will eventually drop the ability they are bad at completely, creating two distinct types of organisms within the species who can only reproduce together. Over millions of years that will become more and more distinct and voila males and females.

The thing about evolutionary theory that I have noticed but just never said, is that it appears to be so far-fetched, outlandish, implausible, and impossible that to buttress it scientists use phrases like, millions of years, to try and give it a fighting chance of possibilty.

But...time, no matter how long, will never make something happen that just isn't capable of happening. For example, no matter how much I might want to be a succeeding, hereditary, king of England, it's just not in my DNA. I am not a part of that blood line. Time is irrelevant and immaterial. Even if millions of years passed and I were able to live that long, I would still never be king (based on the qualifications that I mentioned above).

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ofcourse that just shows the extant of your ignorance doesnt it. the entirety of the computer use and programming languages are based on binary code, i.e. 0s and 1s. and combination thereoff. are you willing to say then that since the 1960s NO new information has been created in the worlds of computer or databases or the internet or computer languages?

its the same argument with dna. dna consists of a tertiary code, i.e. three basic units that CREATE information. and the infinite combinations of the three you can make as the chain length increases. (its similar to mathematics actually. theres only 10 numbers. 0-9. but their combinations are infinity and hence the set of natural numbers is infinite.

and please stop using terms like information species and macroevolution, i dont think im being elitist in saying that you havent a CLUE as to what the hell any of those things mean.

Are we deviating from the thread topic? I think I am.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It's more convenient for me.

I'm not a geneticist

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it isnt. the fact is that ALL living things {including different species} are made up of only three bases of dna A U G.

What about the C and the T?

JIA, people are giving you reasonable answers but you are refusing to accept them as they do not fit your agenda.

This is not an actual discussion you have started. If you are going to open threads that you will simply twist to your own ends they will be closed, and if you keep opening such threads then any thread you open in this section will be closed.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The thing about evolutionary theory that I have noticed but just never said, is that it appears to be so far-fetched, outlandish, implausible, and impossible that to buttress it scientists use phrases like, millions of years, to try and give it a fighting chance of possibilty.

But...time, no matter how long, will never make something happen that just isn't capable of happening. For example, no matter how much I might want to be a succeeding, hereditary, king of England, it's just not in my DNA. I am not a part of that blood line. Time is irrelevant and immaterial. Even if millions of years passed and I were able to live that long, I would still never be king (based on the qualifications that I mentioned above).

I am sorry, you wanted a possible answer. That is a possible answer within evolutionary theory.

Your example is ridiculous of course. You would not ever be part of the bloodline. Your offspring could be within one generation. You just have to reproduce with Princess Beatrice of York, and your offspring needs a cup of luck.


Evolution does not talk about individual organisms, it talks about developments over many generations.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It's more convenient for me.

True understanding requires work. inamilist's knowledge came from sincere interest that found fruition in research and reading. For some things, there are not shortcuts.

Also, kinda what I was saying earlier, though not as sternly:

Originally posted by Ushgarak
JIA, people are giving you reasonable answers but you are refusing to accept them as they do not fit your agenda.

its like talking to a christian wall.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sorry, you wanted a possible answer. That is a possible answer within evolutionary theory.

Your example is ridiculous of course. You would not ever be part of the bloodline. Your offspring could be within one generation. You just have to reproduce with Princess Beatrice of York, and your offspring needs a cup of luck.


Evolution does not talk about individual organisms, it talks about developments over many generations.

Macroevolution just isn't possible.

I know time is the great comforter for the evolutionist, but time cannot introduce new information into the DNA of a cell to cause it to create something that it is not predestined to have, again based on it's DNA code/blueprint.

Case in point: builders use a blueprint to construct a tall edifice (like the 2,717 foot Burj Dubai). Whatever is not in the blueprint won't appear in the finished product (all things being equal and no changes made at any point of the process to the blueprint).

It doesn't matter how much time is involved--if it isn't included in the blueprint, it isn't being built. Architects and other engineers adhere to this schematic closely for direction. If they deviate from it something might go terribly wrong.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Macroevolution just isn't possible.

I know time is the great comforter for the evolutionist, but time cannot introduce new information into the DNA of a cell to cause it to create something that it is not predestined to have, again based on it's DNA code/blueprint.

Case in point: builders use a blueprint to construct a tall edifice (like the 2,717 foot Burj Dubai). Whatever is not in the blueprint won't appear in the finished product (all things being equal and no changes made at any point of the process to the blueprint).

It doesn't matter how much time is involved--if it isn't included in the blueprint, it isn't being built. Architects and other engineers adhere to this schematic closely for direction. If they deviate from it something might go terribly wrong.

false equivilance

you dont know what your talking about

shut up

Really not sure why anyone's even bothering to argument this anymore. It's clear that he isn't carrying on the debate in good faith.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Macroevolution just isn't possible.

I know time is the great comforter for the evolutionist, but time cannot introduce new information into the DNA of a cell to cause it to create something that it is not predestined to have, again based on it's DNA code/blueprint.

But that is just incorrect. It can and does. It's very much like numbers. You only have 10 symbols for number 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, but with those you can codify all the natural numbers (even up to the complex numbers and more, with only 10 little things). Another example are computers they use 0 and 1s and can create vast incredible amounts of information just by these two symbols. DNA works similarly it has 4 "symbols" and it can create incredibly complex systems.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Case in point: builders use a blueprint to construct a tall edifice (like the 2,717 foot Burj Dubai). Whatever is not in the blueprint won't appear in the finished product (all things being equal and no changes made at any point of the process to the blueprint).

It doesn't matter how much time is involved--if it isn't included in the blueprint, it isn't being built. Architects and other engineers adhere to this schematic closely for direction. If they deviate from it something might go terribly wrong.

Well, that's not ho evolution works though. You are comparing it to a different concept. Like I showed, there are things that can no change and you showed something that can't. Evolution works like what I showed, you can't just assume it works the way you want it to when it is shown to work differently, you know?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Even if you rearrange the letters in the word evangelists, to me, a better example of something new would be going from words to something concrete. Rearranging letters to me is more like microevolution--which is a scientific fact. But going from letters or words to, say a pencil, represents new information. This would be an example of macroevolution. Going from one thing to something totally different.

This probably makes no sense to you. Oh, well, it doesn't make much sense to me either.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Only a small part of the DNA strand is expressed in sexual reproduction. When more is expressed, you may not have "new genetic material," but you do have the biological equivalent. Should I get more specific? This is actually my major, so... you can be my homework assignment

That was so incredibly disappointing.

I don't think it does at all that is why creation makes more sence with Adam and Eve.

1's and 0's everything is made up of 1001110101101010101010101.

Penises and Vaginas. heh.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I don't think it does at all that is why creation makes more sence with Adam and Eve. Does it make sense to you if we happen to be talking about plants?

Originally posted by Quark_666
That was so incredibly disappointing.

JIA has done so much for the religion I was hoping that christian God could finally invite him over.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Given the advantages of asexual reproduction, how (or why) did sexual reproduction originate? Why is sexual reproduction the predominate method?

Asexual has big disadvantages when it comes to multi-celled animals.

Cause we were placed here by aliens. Now it all makes sense. Only plausable explaination. lol

Mutated genes or experimented genes. Good for us!!. Explains Pegasus too. Oh and dragons.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Cause we were placed here by aliens. Now it all makes sense. Only plausable explaination. lol

Mutated genes or experimented genes. Good for us!!. Explains Pegasus too. Oh and dragons.

Your not supposed to tell them that.

Well the truth is out now.

I think I saw a documentary on that. Ancient Aliens or whatever. Interesting stuff.

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/alienssquare.jpg

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/alienssquare.jpg

I love the guy's hair. It's like he knows he's a nut.

LOL. But when your hair looks like that, doesn't that automatically mean you are a genius?

When he started out his hair was pretty normal lol

Got smarter over time. lol

The explanation's were interesting though. Can't really buy into it, but it was entertaining.

http://blog.officebums.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tsoukalos-2.png

haermm


http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/humans-ancient-aliens-guy-240x180.jpg

Holy balls!!! I never seen the transition like that. That is awesome man.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://blog.officebums.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tsoukalos-2.png

haermm


http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/humans-ancient-aliens-guy-240x180.jpg

I've seen some funny "final evolution" pics of that guy. Good times.

Also, aliens.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/alienssquare.jpg

His dad...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_les3q3jnhU1qbg0uuo1_250.jpg

haha ah man. I love memes.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/alienssquare.jpg Yeah I love em too and what alien did that to his hair??

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/155/594/yesitis2.gif

Back on topic.

I would like to know, why evolution would never end up with male and female reproduction?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Back on topic.

I would like to know, why evolution would never end up with male and female reproduction? Do you mean, why would sex never appear? Well, consider...

Of the 3.9ish billion years life has been on Earth, for >90% of that time (the first 3.4ish billion years), life was simple, microbial, reproducing and surviving just fine without all that male-female jive. But then, relatively recently, something major supposedly happened (eg, massive methane release from ocean bottom), which upset the applecart, allowing multicellular critters (and eventually sex) to arise.

IIRC, it's estimated that most of the biomass on Earth today is still microbial.

Sex may be a big deal to us, but in the Big Picture, it doesn't seem all that necessary.

Originally posted by Mindship
Do you mean, why would sex never appear? Well, consider...

Of the 3.9ish billion years life has been on Earth, for >90% of that time (~3.4 billion years), life was simple, microbial, reproducing and surviving just fine without all that male-female jive. But then something major supposedly happened (eg, massive methane release from ocean bottom), which upset the applecart, allowing multicellular critters (and eventually sex) to arise.

IIRC, it's estimated that most of the biomass on Earth today is still microbial.

Sex may be a big deal to us, but in the Big Picture, it doesn't seem all that necessary.

The female amoebas agree with you, but the male amoebas are waiting outside the bar.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The female amoebas agree with you, but the male amoebas are waiting outside the bar. ...oh man, the image that flashed through my head when I read that...

Originally posted by Mindship
...oh man, the image that flashed through my head when I read that...

If there are no pics, then it didn't happen. I read that somewhere...

It's all in the MINDship. lol

Sorry I missed this thread and if I am convering something already covered (no way am I reading 6 pages on an easy to answer OP).

The REAL question is: why do we have males and females when hermaphroditic sexual reproduction (each member of the species has both or can function as a male or female) offers the best of all worlds including asexual reproduction in times of "island" organisms (meaning, there are none to reproduce with but there is still plenty of food around so they reproduce asexually). That would obviously be the most advantageous outcome for natural selection. It has all the perks of sexual and asexual reproduction with none of the bad side-effects. The only proper response I have seen to this is a comment about over-population. Nonsense. Evolution should take care of those that can reproduce too quickly. Now, someone may say to that, "which is why we ended up with most higher species being sexual, not hermaphroditic". Nonsense. That eliminates thousands to hundreds of thousands of possible solutions for what evolution could do BESIDES non-hermaphroditic sexual reproduction. Why would you automatically assume the one solution to overpopulation is sexual reproduction? Why not assume a mating ritual or mating conditions that reduced the probability of reproduction? There's plenty of rituals found in nature. There are plenty of conditions, as well.


Just saying that there is a better question than the one in the OP.


There is a perfectly valid evolutionary reason for sexual reproduction "working", btw. I just don't see why it ended up being non-hermaphroditic.

Evolution doesn't get you the best system, just a system that works.

I can't think why hermaphroditic organisms would massively out reproduce sexual ones. The benefit is rather niche (when you have a group of one sex localized in one place) and populations falling into that niche are just going to die without reproducing.

At the same time more genitals means more potential for infection and damage so they would be slightly selected against.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution doesn't get you the best system, just a system that works.

This, I understand.

But I thought that hermaphrodites, at the worst, co-evolved with binary species. Meaning, the "best system" was already place at or before the binary system. Meaning, in this instance, the "best system" should have been selected for as it would be superior to the binary sexual counterparts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't think why hermaphroditic organisms would massively out reproduce sexual ones.

Powers of two.

Instead of one mother and father, you have one mother and one father in each. Meaning, you double the output. This cannot be sustained so evolution would have to eliminate those species that produced too many offspring.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The benefit is rather niche (when you have a group of one sex localized in one place) and populations falling into that niche are just going to die without reproducing.

At the same time more genitals means more potential for infection and damage so they would be slightly selected against.

You're thinking of genitals in terms of Homo sapiens. However, that's still a problem of immune systems rather than increasing the "risk front". Additionally, it is partially a function of volume (and surface area) rather than number. Lastly, it would be easily selected for which is why snails and slugs are so numerous (I believe they are second to insects in that regard).

Some respond that we didn't get complex/sentient* hermaphrodites because snails and other types of hermaphroditic multicellular organisms were already so well adapted to their environment that significant change is not necessary. This is probably the most plausible and I can settle for this. Snails are one of the oldest species known.

*Because sentience does not equal higher evolution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I thought that hermaphrodites, at the worst, co-evolved with binary species. Meaning, the "best system" was already place at or before the binary system. Meaning, in this instance, the "best system" should have been selected for as it would be superior to the binary sexual counterparts.

This occurred to me as well but it does mean we can say (a bit tautologically) that evolution picks sexual species because they outcompeted the hermaphrodites.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Powers of two.

Ah, yes, while we're restricted to the plodding pace of the Fibonacci sequence.

There are a couple of theories on the origin of the sexes are collected here:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/gender_origin/

The practical one makes some sense in terms of competing against hermaphrodites. If you need to raise children and you need to get food its beneficial to have sexes specialized for those tasks. I'm not sure if hermaphroditism prevents sex differentiation, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Instead of one mother and father, you have one mother and one father in each. Meaning, you double the output. This cannot be sustained so evolution would have to eliminate those species that produced too many offspring.

Evolution doesn't really need to do that as I understand it. The predator/prey relationship deals with population, its called the S-curve. You get a pair of slightly our of phase sine waves as the predators benefit from abundance of prey until they start forcing the population down there aren't enough to keep it from rising again. A hermaphrodite predator would be able to keep up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're thinking of genitals in terms of Homo sapiens. However, that's still a problem of immune systems rather than increasing the "risk front". Additionally, it is partially a function of volume (and surface area) rather than number. Lastly, it would be easily selected for which is why snails and slugs are so numerous (I believe they are second to insects in that regard).

I guess we could be blob people and it wouldn't matter so much.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This occurred to me as well but it does mean we can say (a bit tautologically) that evolution picks sexual species because they outcompeted the hermaphrodites.

Well, it would appear that evolution picked both but evolution "got it right" with hermaphrodites much sooner...which is why some types have been around for 600 million+ years.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are a couple of theories on the origin of the sexes are collected here:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/gender_origin/

The majority of those arguments are microscopically based. While Dawkins goes as far as to say "male equals giving information and female equals keeping that information". While I do not hold that microscopic reasons for reproduction are mutually exclusive to macroscopic actions, I do hold that my approach is much more macroscopic than the context of that article.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The practical one makes some sense in terms of competing against hermaphrodites. If you need to raise children and you need to get food its beneficial to have sexes specialized for those tasks. I'm not sure if hermaphroditism prevents sex differentiation, though.

We end up with birds that have long beaks and tongues that can pull out the snail's meat from their shell. Meaning, because things like snails have been around so long, the purely "sexual" species evolved around feeding practices concerning snails. This is another testament to how permanent hermaphrodites can really be. They get the benefit of exchanging information (refer back to Dawkin's explanation) and genetic diversity but they also get the benefit of asexual reproduction in times of need. They are the "have your cake and eat it too" kinds of species. To me, it just seems like the ultimate result of natural selection when it comes to sexuality.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution doesn't really need to do that as I understand it. The predator/prey relationship deals with population, its called the S-curve. You get a pair of slightly our of phase sine waves as the predators benefit from abundance of prey until they start forcing the population down there aren't enough to keep it from rising again. A hermaphrodite predator would be able to keep up.

This is part of what I mean. Some species were very successful because they flood their predators with so many opportunities to "feed" that there are never enough predators to eat all of the offspring. This occurs with sea turtles: there are too many babies trying to reach the ocean that the predators cannot eat them fast enough. However, it is balanced enough that enough of those turtles are eaten that they do not eat too much as they grow in the oceans.

The balance can be thrown out, for sure and this is what I was talking about when I said nature would eliminate those species. Too many are created that not enough predators can consume them. Then they take over until their food source becomes scarce so their number dwindle down or they evolve to better control their population (like selective breeding...rituals...etc). This has happened several times and I am reminded of the Devonian period taking care of much of the homogeneity through an explosion of speciation.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess we could be blob people and it wouldn't matter so much.

Well, personally, I am okay with being turned into a hermaphrodite. Sure, it would be weird, strange, and/or devastating at first. But we would get used to it.

Not a blob, though. Yuck. Reminds me of the breeding pile on South Park. Was it the "they took our jobs!" episode?


I was hoping that humans could master DNA and DNA expression to the point to where we could create "perfect" creatures that are adapted to pretty much any environment on the earth. Take the best of each super species and combine it into a super smart creature...bam...super perfect "humans". I think we would resemble reptiles. We may even have chitin skin.

That's an awesome thread idea.

Originally posted by socool8520
I think I saw a documentary on that. Ancient Aliens or whatever. Interesting stuff.
Ancient Astronauts . Marvel Comics' Celestials' creation was based upon this concept .

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Asexual reproduction merely produces clones. What I want to know is how, or more importantly why sexual reproduction appears to prevail over asexual reproduction. Because.. it's more fun?

Combination of two sets of chromosomes instead of just one. More perks in that direction.

How does evolution explain males and females?


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14470540


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=128#post14470535


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14470015


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=521531&pagenumber=9#post14449701

Evolution is real. Just wait long enough and everything will change.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=5#post14508899

So, I see that JIA agrees that evolution is real.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, I see that JIA agrees that evolution is real.



You are wrong.

I hate the devil's lie.

Evolutionary theory is the devil's lie.




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

You will eventually evolve.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will eventually evolve.


That is a lie.




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Evolve just means to change. Everything evolves. The world around us has evolved over just my life time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolve just means to change. Everything evolves. The world around us has evolved over just my life time.



But we are talking about in the context of the origin of life.

God created all things, not evolution.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Origin of life? There is no origin of life. The Buddha just IS.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Origin of life? There is no origin of life. The Buddha just IS.

Is what?


On there way to Hell enlightened and all?





http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Life exists anywhere the conditions are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life exists anywhere the conditions are right.

What is life?



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

The Buddha is life. I am not saying the historical Buddha is life. I am telling that Buddhahood (God) is life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Buddha is life. I am not saying the historical Buddha is life. I am telling that Buddhahood (God) is life.


Buddha's don't believe in the existence of God.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Not in your god. Buddhism is far more complicated.

Basically there is no need to worship God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not in your god. Buddhism is far more complicated.

Basically there is no need to worship God.


There is no God in Buddhism.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

You mean Buddhism doesn't worship a god. There are many gods in Buddhist mythology.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You mean Buddhism doesn't worship a god. There are many gods in Buddhist mythology.

That's not what I read.



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

There are as many schools in Buddhism as there are denomination in Christianity.

What you read is that the god of the bible is not a part of Buddhism, and that Buddhism is not about worshiping a god, any god.

I believe in God, but it would be silly to worship God.

If I was talking to a Buddhist, I would never use the word god (God). I use the word god (God) so that I can communicate with you. It is an expedient means.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are as many schools in Buddhism as there are denomination in Christianity.

What you read is that the god of the bible is not a part of Buddhism, and that Buddhism is not about worshiping a god, any god.

I believe in God, but it would be silly to worship God.

If I was talking to a Buddhist, I would never use the word god. I do that so I can communicate with you. It is an expedient means.


One of the schools is the Mayahan.

Why do you think that worsipping God would be silly?



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

God is Buddhahood, and it would be silly to worship Buddhahood.

Do you believe in trees? Then Why would you worship trees?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God is Buddhahood, and it would be silly to worship Buddhahood.

Do you believe in trees? Then Why would you worship trees?


Some people do.

I don't, but some people do.

Prerogative?




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Given the advantages of asexual reproduction, how (or why) did sexual reproduction originate? Why is sexual reproduction the predominate method?

This is the most ridiculous uninformed opinion on the subject I have ever seen.

Asexual production does not give genetic diversity, which is necessary for everything from robust immune systems to not having polydactylism.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is the most ridiculous uninformed opinion on the subject I have ever seen.

Asexual production does not give genetic diversity, which is necessary for everything from robust immune systems to not having polydactylism.

But you haven't answered the question.

How does evolutionary theory account for males and females?



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But you haven't answered the question.

How does evolutionary theory account for males and females?



http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

I did. I said you lack a fundamental understanding of the concept, and your assertion that asexual production is superior lacks evidence. The onus of evidence is on you to prove that asexual division is better than sexual reproduction (which is laughable, really).

Also, stop reposting your links when you reply to me. It's the height of ridiculousness.

Most of the life on this planet reproduces by a-sexuality. Male and female is a relatively new phanomina.

"How does evolutionary theory account for males and females?"
Why would evolution account? This question is like "how does my kitchen account for heating food?" The question makes no sense.

Why are there so many conditions and diseases now tho?

Is it because advancements in medicine can easier detect them.

Is it because bad traits are more prevalently being passed on because you don't need to be the "fittest" to survive.

A combination of these two.

Or none of the above?

Originally posted by Raisen
Why are there so many conditions and diseases now tho?

Is it because advancements in medicine can easier detect them.

Is it because bad traits are more prevalently being passed on because you don't need to be the "fittest" to survive.

A combination of these two.

Or none of the above?

Try 7 billion people on the planet.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Try 7 billion people on the planet.

There wouldn't be that many unless medicine helped the "unfit" to survive and pass on their "unfit" genes.

so we're defying nature?

creating an unsustainable amount of people?

Quite possibly. Since the majority of First-World governments are profit-driven, it's unlikely a feasible world-wide solution will ever exist.

Unless it's a form of eradication. Also, it's funny how politicians are split over the issue of global warming, but the majority of the scientific community is aware of it and saddened by our lack of involvement in that area.

But replacing coal, oil and nuclear power doesn't create wealth for the upper class, so GL with it ever happening.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Quite possibly. Since the majority of First-World governments are profit-driven, it's unlikely a feasible world-wide solution will ever exist.

Unless it's a form of eradication. Also, it's funny how politicians are split over the issue of global warming, but the majority of the scientific community is aware of it and saddened by our lack of involvement in that area.

But replacing coal, oil and nuclear power doesn't create wealth for the upper class, so GL with it ever happening.

This is a good topic, but it is in the wrong thread, and the wrong forum.