Your Theories On Evolution?

[EminemBase]

But evolution is the logic us humans are best at.
It's really the only explanation we can think of to explain how we came to be.

Soo fucking simple.

Yeah well it's not just the only one we can think of... it is it.

DNA doesn't lie, animal adaption doesn't lie and neither do fossils.

Everything is as it should be if it did happen and every opportunity for it to be proven wrong or be something different has failed. Evolution is the truth.

[mdemaz]

But evolution is the logic us humans are best at.
It's really the only explanation we can think of to explain how we came to be.

Soo fucking simple.

Yeah well it's not just the only one we can think of... it is it.

DNA doesn't lie, animal adaption doesn't lie and neither do fossils.

Everything is as it should be if it did happen and every opportunity for it to be proven wrong or be something different has failed. Evolution is the truth.

I know what you mean..Creationists and religious nuts all have valid points, but at the end of the day, science wins..
I was always fascinated with our origins..I studied cosmology and all that shit and really, billions of years are really small steps in the grand scheme of things..
The cosmic clock is soo massive..

DNA and fossils are all we have to grab on, it's really disappointing when you think about it, if only we had move evidence, then we would truly know the absolute truth.
For now, we accept evolution as a "plausible truth."

[Fa-Q]

I can disprove Evolution very easily.

All Evolutionists say that we came from one-celled organisms. Well all one-celled organisms produce asexually. That means that somewhere along the line, one of these one-celled organisms had to sprout a penis. That's an "one and a million shot." At the same time, another one-celled organism had to sprout the opposite sexual organ, a vagina. That's an "one and a million shot." Microscopic organisms traveling the entire Earth searching for his/her partner that is sexually compatible, that is assuming they ARE compatible and are able to mate. That's an "one and a million shot." Finally, if they do find each other, the idea that mindless one-celled organisms mating is....you guessed it...an "one and a million shot." On top of all those "One and a million shots" the evolutionary process would have to been far enough along that the birth canal had to of been developed. That's an "one and a million shot."

Now how many one and a million shots are there?

[AbramIsaac]

Bacteria that produce asexually also have a mechanism similar to a penis.

They swap DNA using a Pilus. It's sticks from the bacteria's body and sticks into another bacterium. I believe that bacteria that develop a Pilus can only exchange DNA with a bacterium that hasn't developed one, similar to sex organs.

Earlier on in the evolutionary process, it's likely that life that could reproduce sexually could also reproduce asexually. It's advantageous though for the sexually reproducing life, because one process is simpler and produces greater genetic variety--so different strengths and weaknesses that come into to play and help it's survival and progression over non-sexually reproducing life forms.

Just some basic theory on the matter. The idea is that maybe it isn't so easy to explain away with one argument, because it's more complex than that.

[Fa-Q]

Bacteria that produce asexually also have a mechanism similar to a penis.

They swap DNA using a Pilus. It's sticks from the bacteria's body and sticks into another bacterium. I believe that bacteria that develop a Pilus can only exchange DNA with a bacterium that hasn't developed one, similar to sex organs.

Earlier on in the evolutionary process, it's likely that life that could reproduce sexually could also reproduce asexually. It's advantageous though for the sexually reproducing life, because one process is simpler and produces greater genetic variety--so different strengths and weaknesses that come into to play and help it's survival and progression over non-sexually reproducing life forms.

Just some basic theory on the matter. The idea is that maybe it isn't so easy to explain away with one argument, because it's more complex than that.

Bacteria do not have capabilities for a full sexual encounter and birth of another offspring via sexual reproduction. It's impossible.

[AbramIsaac]

Indeed, and neither do they have legs and feet to walk with, but that's not really what I said, was it?

Bacteria that produce asexually also have a mechanism similar to a penis.

They swap DNA using a Pilus. It's sticks from the bacteria's body and sticks into another bacterium. I believe that bacteria that develop a Pilus can only exchange DNA with a bacterium that hasn't developed one, similar to sex organs.

It's a small example of how something as simple as bacteria do something that may have been the beginning of sexual reproduction. Despite the fact that they are asexual, under this context, the bacterium with the Pilus is very similar to the male, and the one without it akin to the female. That's not to say that a Pilus is a Penis. The two are not the same thing, and I don't think anyone is really arguing that.

Regardless, my statement stands. The bacterium can inject DNA into another, which changes the way it will produce in the future. That's significant, and I don't think it's a stretch to see the parallels between that and sexual reproduction. The only reason I brought that up is because you were mentioning single cell lifeforms, and it doesn't get much lower in terms of life than bacteria.

Hermaphrodites are the most likely answer, in terms of early sexual reproduction. It happens now in nature, I'm sure it did long ago as well. Earthworms are a great example. They have both ovaries and testes, but cannot self-fertilize. In some hermaphrodite life forms, once the two come together and fight for domination, the loser becomes the female, the winner a male.

So, the "loser" remains female for the rest of the mating season, focusing on the process of birth. The "winner" is remains male, and can move on to other conquests. It isn't too much of a stretch to think that eventually the weaker, less aggressive animals would eventually stop producing male parts, over the course of generations. The aggressive animals would have less need for ovaries, and retain their male parts only. Which seems to ring true when studying male/female dynamics in the wild.

A slightly more complex example.

[mdemaz]

In a way you guys are both right, haha.

You guys seem to know more than me about the whole cell system.
Cells can reproduce but sadly, some can't or have limited or hard ways of reproducing and like F.A.Q said, it's really unlikely it could spawn a sexual organ...One in a million would seem a long shot, but maybe our earth is that utopia in a galaxy full of brutality?..That's one of the flaws of the theory, they say that life in the water with jellyfish and all that started out in cell divisions that eventually resulted in living organisms similar to plankton or algae..
But really, it's hard to really explain the effects of cell division when it comes to the primordial era of the universe, our solar system and ultimately our planet..

None of this really makes much sense to me or even professors, but really, it's another plausible thing to really agree on seeing that we know that cells, atoms and bacteriae exist now, and most likely have existed since the birth of the cosmos.

[AbramIsaac]

Well the idea is that a single celled organism wouldn't have to sprout a penis. It couldn't do it, because when you're talking about sex organs, you're getting into the realm of multiple-celled organisms. That's why they don't have birth canals and all that, as Fa-Q was seeming to get at.

But there is a precedent in bacteria for something similar to sexual reproduction. That's all that I was saying. It's not a stretch to see how that could be the precursor to sexual reproductive organs. Meaning that the mechanisms for such a thing is present in a similar form in even the simplest of life forms.

As I said, it isn't so much about something sprouting a vagina here, and then another sprouting a penis. Hermaphrodites are more likely to have preceded male and female pairs. Eventually, the predisposed differences in the pairs began to manifest itself physically.

That's one theory, anyway.

[Tash8]

I can disprove Evolution very easily.

All Evolutionists say that we came from one-celled organisms. Well all one-celled organisms produce asexually. That means that somewhere along the line, one of these one-celled organisms had to sprout a penis. That's an "one and a million shot." At the same time, another one-celled organism had to sprout the opposite sexual organ, a vagina. That's an "one and a million shot." Microscopic organisms traveling the entire Earth searching for his/her partner that is sexually compatible, that is assuming they ARE compatible and are able to mate. That's an "one and a million shot." Finally, if they do find each other, the idea that mindless one-celled organisms mating is....you guessed it...an "one and a million shot." On top of all those "One and a million shots" the evolutionary process would have to been far enough along that the birth canal had to of been developed. That's an "one and a million shot."

Now how many one and a million shots are there?

you didn't disprove anything, all you did was prove how implausible it is

[DanWS]

I can disprove Evolution very easily.

All Evolutionists say that we came from one-celled organisms. Well all one-celled organisms produce asexually. That means that somewhere along the line, one of these one-celled organisms had to sprout a penis. That's an "one and a million shot." At the same time, another one-celled organism had to sprout the opposite sexual organ, a vagina. That's an "one and a million shot." Microscopic organisms traveling the entire Earth searching for his/her partner that is sexually compatible, that is assuming they ARE compatible and are able to mate. That's an "one and a million shot." Finally, if they do find each other, the idea that mindless one-celled organisms mating is....you guessed it...an "one and a million shot." On top of all those "One and a million shots" the evolutionary process would have to been far enough along that the birth canal had to of been developed. That's an "one and a million shot."

Now how many one and a million shots are there?

Gives a couple of basic explanations/theories.

[mdemaz]

My mind just got blown..
Hawkins can most likely be one of the world's smartest men.
Next to that Asian dude, I forgot his name.

[Fa-Q]

Well the idea is that a single celled organism wouldn't have to sprout a penis. It couldn't do it, because when you're talking about sex organs, you're getting into the realm of multiple-celled organisms. That's why they don't have birth canals and all that, as Fa-Q was seeming to get at.

But there is a precedent in bacteria for something similar to sexual reproduction. That's all that I was saying. It's not a stretch to see how that could be the precursor to sexual reproductive organs. Meaning that the mechanisms for such a thing is present in a similar form in even the simplest of life forms.

As I said, it isn't so much about something sprouting a vagina here, and then another sprouting a penis. Hermaphrodites are more likely to have preceded male and female pairs. Eventually, the predisposed differences in the pairs began to manifest itself physically.

That's one theory, anyway.

Yeah, but you realize, the lifespan of one of these one-celled could not be long enough to evolve, then find a mate and reproduce. If they die, they can not pass on the genetic material that had become evolved. The theory is collapsed in and of itself.

It's like if the man who invented the game of basketball had put the peach basket up, but never told anybody about it. Then went to his grave without showing anybody his game, thus, no NBA....No LeBron James, no biddy ball or little Timmy giving it his all out there.

[EminemBase]

But evolution is the logic us humans are best at.
It's really the only explanation we can think of to explain how we came to be.

Soo fucking simple.

Yeah well it's not just the only one we can think of... it is it.

DNA doesn't lie, animal adaption doesn't lie and neither do fossils.

Everything is as it should be if it did happen and every opportunity for it to be proven wrong or be something different has failed. Evolution is the truth.

I know what you mean..Creationists and religious nuts all have valid points, but at the end of the day, science wins..
I was always fascinated with our origins..I studied cosmology and all that shit and really, billions of years are really small steps in the grand scheme of things..
The cosmic clock is soo massive..

DNA and fossils are all we have to grab on, it's really disappointing when you think about it, if only we had move evidence, then we would truly know the absolute truth.
For now, we accept evolution as a "plausible truth."

No, creationists have NO valid points. I've heard creationists' views on Evolution and they're idiotic. Views born out of IGNORANCE, no validity at all.

And you say 'all' we have to grab onto? DNA is incredible evidence. What do you mean 'all we have' lmao. The fact all living organisms have the same DNA that we can map out like computer code and compare is the smoking gun.

Everything else is a bonus. That's not all we have either. There's mountains of evidence to support Evolution from every angle. It's an indisputable fact, not a wild theory, a loose opinion or an idea. And the evidence is colossal and undeniable.

[EminemBase]

I can disprove Evolution very easily.

All Evolutionists say that we came from one-celled organisms. Well all one-celled organisms produce asexually. That means that somewhere along the line, one of these one-celled organisms had to sprout a penis. That's an "one and a million shot." At the same time, another one-celled organism had to sprout the opposite sexual organ, a vagina. That's an "one and a million shot." Microscopic organisms traveling the entire Earth searching for his/her partner that is sexually compatible, that is assuming they ARE compatible and are able to mate. That's an "one and a million shot." Finally, if they do find each other, the idea that mindless one-celled organisms mating is....you guessed it...an "one and a million shot." On top of all those "One and a million shots" the evolutionary process would have to been far enough along that the birth canal had to of been developed. That's an "one and a million shot."

Now how many one and a million shots are there?

You didn't disprove anything.

All you proved is that you do not know very much about evolution and to support your argument you use vague speculation and guesswork as if it's fact lmao.

Firstly, different organisms and lifeforms reproduce in different ways. Not everything reproduces like we do. The chain of life is incredibly complex and diverse.

Secondly, you say 'a one in million shot' like that's a proven fact, you just pull that out of the air and then use that as the basis for your entire idea. You're throwing around totally hair-brain stats as if they are the exact truths about how Evolution happened. Try learning about it properly before attempting to debunk it lmao. You also confuse how the process works, as you don't know how it works. Stop guessing, and actually find out.

Learn how natural selection works. Things that don't work just don't get selected. We would only see the things which do work, by definition, after billions of years. Billions of years of selection, the only things that work survive. So we only see things that sexually reproduce, successfully, and survive.

That's perfect logic.

Finally - something being improbable doesn't mean it's impossible. This is why we say life is so incredible. If life was very probable and common, then it wouldn't be so amazing for us to be alive and scientists wouldn't constantly rave about it.

We don't actually know how probable or improbable life is. It could either be very very probable and there could be endless examples of life throughout the Universe. Or, it could be extremely improbable, making life on our Earth that much more amazing.

We also wouldn't be able to speculate the idea of our improbability if we did not exist. So by definition, we'd have to exist in this improbable way to even talk about it...

It's also improbable for you personally to be alive. Out of the millions of sperms that raced to your mother's egg, you were the fastest. That's very improbable from YOUR perspective, but one sperm had to make it... ? so why not you. Does that mean you don't really exist? or you weren't really produced in that manner? of course not.

And that's just through intercourse. For Evolution, we have BILLIONS of years of selection. And by definition, SOMETHING must be selected, as whatever doesn't work... simply won't be. It's not complicated, and it did happen. Just like you won the race, unfortunately.

Oh and the fact Evolution was proposed over a hundred years ago and has been successfully proven and accepted as fact by Science, and has yet to be disproven or thrown into serious questioning... the fact you think you've had this thought or can disprove all of that with a few paragraphs is hilarious. And a real sign of incredible arrogance and ignorance. Think about that for a second, very hard. You think thousands upon thousands of great minds, and geniuses within biology and science could do nothing but prove this idea right... you think you're more astute, informed and able than all of those combined, with this idea you've had? wow. Go learn.

[mdemaz]

Yeah well it's not just the only one we can think of... it is it.

DNA doesn't lie, animal adaption doesn't lie and neither do fossils.

Everything is as it should be if it did happen and every opportunity for it to be proven wrong or be something different has failed. Evolution is the truth.

I know what you mean..Creationists and religious nuts all have valid points, but at the end of the day, science wins..
I was always fascinated with our origins..I studied cosmology and all that shit and really, billions of years are really small steps in the grand scheme of things..
The cosmic clock is soo massive..

DNA and fossils are all we have to grab on, it's really disappointing when you think about it, if only we had move evidence, then we would truly know the absolute truth.
For now, we accept evolution as a "plausible truth."

No, creationists have NO valid points. I've heard creationists' views on Evolution and they're idiotic. Views born out of IGNORANCE, no validity at all.

And you say 'all' we have to grab onto? DNA is incredible evidence. What do you mean 'all we have' lmao. The fact all living organisms have the same DNA that we can map out like computer code and compare is the smoking gun.

Everything else is a bonus. That's not all we have either. There's mountains of evidence to support Evolution from every angle. It's an indisputable fact, not a wild theory, a loose opinion or an idea. And the evidence is colossal and undeniable.

Well, because DNA is soo incredible, it may be the only thing worth looking into, haha..

I dunno what I was thinking when I said creationists had valid points, just babble I guess..