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Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed information; it can be written by anyone, so, I take it with a grain of salt.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
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.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In what way are viruses the fire for evolution?
one example:
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:
or another:
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[i.e. cancer/teleomeric damage etc] again increasing the odds of the wellbeing of the offspring.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
one wordDIVERSITY.
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[i.e. cancer/teleomeric damage etc] 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.
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 leonheartmmOr even theology would've been a better use of time.
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.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
one wordDIVERSITY.
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[i.e. cancer/teleomeric damage etc] 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.