How does evolution explain males and females?

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.

That was so incredibly disappointing.