How did two sexes evolve?

[CrochityOldMan]

I already posted this in the Philosphy debate seciont, but figured id also ask in the science forum since it obviously spans both sections.
have wondered about how sex evolved for quite some time, if anyone could shed some light on this issue it would be appreciated, because it seems to be a legitament problem.
According to the current theory of evolution the first organisms reproduced asexually, so at some point organisms must have developed the ability to reproduce sexually. I know there are some explanations at a unicellular level of cells connecting and exchanging DNA, but on a multicellular scale there seems to be a large problem. In order for sexual reproducation to be possible it takes a male and female, so a male and female would have to evolve seperately(while reproducing asexually) to the point where two of these different organisms get together and decide to reproduce. It seems very improbable that two such organism would evolve seperately and in such a compatible way. A completely worthless penis would have too be grown and mainted for generations without haveing a purpose, and then be lucky enough to run into a female that had developed an equally useless organ set over an extended period of time. How is this possible?
I understand that there may be an advantage to sexual reproduction, but even if it can for sure be shown to be advantageous this does not explain how it happened. All traits that evolve are advantageous but not all advantageous traits evolve. Please dont awnser this post by showing how sexual reproduction is advantageous. Instead try and purpose a mechanism for how two sexes could have feasibly evolved. And if it came from a creature that produced both sexually and asexually why would that creature ever lose the ability to reproduce both ways as that would clearly be an advantage over just one or the other.

[gallo]

What part of "...it is a perplexing question and the answer is still being sought." didn't you understand?

The manner in which you have asked the question and then ignored all answers is quite typical of creationism. The argument is that if science doesn't have an adequate answer to some problem then the answer must be, "GODDIDIT!" The problem with that is that god is stuffed into the gaps in our knowledge, and as we learn more and more about the world, god gets smaller and smaller. For example, in the last half of the 19th century no one knew how offspring inherited the characteristics of their parents. It turned out to be genes encoded in DNA and not GODDIDIT!

One major fault with that type of argument is that lack of specific knowledge in a particular area is not evidence of a conflicting argument. In other words, just because science lacks a satisfactory answer doesn't mean that GODDIDIT is the answer. At least scientists ask the question and seek the answers.

I'm not saying that this is what you are doing. I'm just saying that it sure is typical of creationists.

[CrochityOldMan]

Quote by: gallo What part of "...it is a perplexing question and the answer is still being sought." didn't you understand? The manner in which you have asked the question and then ignored all answers is quite typical of creationism.

So its a perplexing question without an answer yet i ignored all of the answers? If there still isnt an awnser then how did i ignore the ones given since you admit the ones given were insuffient. I did not simply ignore them, i responded to each one. Most replys never even awnser the qeustion. Most of them simply state an advantage of sexual reproduction.

Its fine for science to have questions that still need answers, and i wouldnt say that just because science couldnt awnser a question yet means that God did it. However i never brought creationism into the debate, im simply stateing its a troubleing problem and im not going to accept evolution tell it fills in some of its gaps. However im not saying that because i dont beleive in evolution i beleive in God. You are right that science hasnt found all the awnsers and evolution is still incomplete so its a fine working hypothesis but it has not been confirmed yet.

The real question is what testable statement does evolution make? Tell me something that if it occured or if you could test it and have it come up negitive you would reject evolution? If it does not have a testable statement it is impossible to disprove. IM not saying there isnt some evidence for evolution but there was also evidence for the mechanical ether and for spontaneous generation, both of these had testable claims that came up negitive, hence the theories were rejected, what claim does evolution make that is potentionally testable? Other than waiting 1,000,000 years to see if it has occured more at a macro level. If this is the testable claim then a scientist should not accept it as fact until the statement is positively confirmed. This question is not rather or not natural selection occurs as this has been shown to be true but rather or not one species can slowly change into another. I understand that evolution is claimed to be the result of natural selection but how do we know?

The question is should we accept evolution as fact or a working hypothesis. I think it is not yet fact.

[rez]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan The question is should we accept evolution as fact or a working hypothesis. I think it is not yet fact.

actually, evolution is a theory, backed up by individual facts.

It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organised multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in moulding evolution." - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981).

[Rainbow]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I already posted this in the Philosphy debate seciont, but figured id also ask in the science forum since it obviously spans both sections. have wondered about how sex evolved for quite some time, if anyone could shed some light on this issue it would be appreciated, because it seems to be a legitament problem. According to the current theory of evolution the first organisms reproduced asexually, so at some point organisms must have developed the ability to reproduce sexually. I know there are some explanations at a unicellular level of cells connecting and exchanging DNA, but on a multicellular scale there seems to be a large problem. In order for sexual reproducation to be possible it takes a male and female, so a male and female would have to evolve seperately(while reproducing asexually) to the point where two of these different organisms get together and decide to reproduce. It seems very improbable that two such organism would evolve seperately and in such a compatible way. A completely worthless penis would have too be grown and mainted for generations without haveing a purpose, and then be lucky enough to run into a female that had developed an equally useless organ set over an extended period of time. How is this possible? I understand that there may be an advantage to sexual reproduction, but even if it can for sure be shown to be advantageous this does not explain how it happened. All traits that evolve are advantageous but not all advantageous traits evolve. Please dont awnser this post by showing how sexual reproduction is advantageous. Instead try and purpose a mechanism for how two sexes could have feasibly evolved. And if it came from a creature that produced both sexually and asexually why would that creature ever lose the ability to reproduce both ways as that would clearly be an advantage over just one or the other.

A world and/or space May exist under a following condition :
- 2 atoms - at least 2 opposite atoms is a Must, otherwise 1 atom can create "BigNothing" - need to exist, get into interaction(s), etc. not to mention an evolution process, following by other ones, etttttc. or ecccct.

(I lost track of those ecccct or ettttc. abbreviations. It could be ttttect. Maybe cctteeee ?
Sorry :-) )

Why do we need 2 atoms, at least ?
Because, other matter(s) Must influence that very first atom, since it can Not influence itself (!) If "yes", then by what means : desire ? :-)
No interaction <---> No friction, No energy, No move, No progress, No evolution, etc.

That is the point that many people forget about. That is the reason for unproductive debates. It is not tabu, but rather lack of data.
Did God created that first atom ?
Something/Someone/God/Being/Mind most likely, since that first atom has Not created itself, by itself.

How is that possible that God came out of nowhere and created that first atom, following others ? No clue.
(There must be another world - or more at least - in contrary to the one we live-in right now. And that seems to be quite logical, since every single atom is built of nucleus and electrons that evolve that nucleus itself, in order to upkeep a balance. Otherwise, that atom does Not exist (!) What is the opposition force that keeps this world we live-in alive, in order to upkeep that balance ? No idea, but it must exist. Otherwise our world does Not exist, either ! )
Yet, this explanation comes much closer to Mankind's Genesis than Evolution theory with no answers to that very first atom, at all.

Assuming that our Science and Technology reaches to most top level possible, the answer would remain the same : first atom. I hope they would find out that there is another world (at least), by that time.
(It reminds me the way of thinking people presented some centuries ago, when they thought there was nothing but European continent and only.)

I think that Evolution has started, since the very first atom emerged in the world we live-in. However, it does Not lead to an alleged conclusion that Evolution initiated and/or created Life in the world we live-in. Evolution is the Result of Life's creation, and it can be fully acceptable at This particular stage and Only.
Evolution is the Result of the very first atom's interactions, and can Not be taken As the Source that initiated that first atom's interactions, not to mention that very first atom's creation process itself, at all (!)
That is a fundamental Difference between Scientific and Theological approach, for Mankind's Genesis.

How this world has been created ? No idea.
The Evolution theory states that it happened, and "BigBang" is my "mommy" or so. That is all.
By what means ? Since when, no-value creates a value ?
( 0 + 1 = 2 or more ? Impressive, is not it ? :-) )
That is a bad idea to rely on that theory, since nothing can create anything. It may serve as a solution, but to some points only, with no answers to the core issue : first atom. That theory is "dead" by now, unless our Science and Technology is going to take a completely new path beyond our way of thinking.
(How can we create something new beyond our way of thinking, that is mystery to me, as of today. Maybe next generations would decide to reject our recent developments - or some parts, at least - and take a different approach.)

The Bible gives us some symbolic clues on this world creation. It tells us that there Is a Being/Force/God/Matter/Mind/Power that has created this world. It provides us with some answers to the Genesis for Mankind.
Following that information, it means God has a mind with "zillion" times greater capabilities - well beyond our imagination - than ours, and manifests its presence to us in Any form it wishes and/or has a desire for.
Who is God and/or purpose for this world's existence ? No idea, except for some speculations.
(Taking the Bible literally, is rather an immature approach. One needs to focus on sense of informations, instead. Bear in mind times it was written, and especially our ancestors, their intellect, knowledge, "technology" they were in possession of, etc. All those factors dictated the way informations were passed on to them.)

We have no information on the very first atom created, yet you raise the question on sex gender and/or eventual evolution and/or reproduction ?

The first atom has created itself, by itself :-)

[Jagged]

I disagree with a rather large portion of everything in this topic, even my side, but in lack of time i ask a simple rhetorical question to the last statement in the post above.

Why did there have to be a first atom? Why couldnt there just have been atoms forever? People seem to accept the thought that this, everthing, will go on forever until the end of time with no end, so why couldnt it just have existed forever in the other way?

Also. What? One atom wouldnt/couldnt create more atoms. the beginning of that post demonstrates absolutely no knowladge of matter.

[gallo]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan So its a perplexing question without an answer yet i ignored all of the answers? If there still isnt an awnser then how did i ignore the ones given since you admit the ones given were insuffient.

My bad. I apologize. I used the word "answer" (not "awnser") with two different connotations. I should have said that you ignored all of the responses.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I did not simply ignore them, i responded to each one.

Well, you posted a message in which you restated your question. I have to be careful how I use "respond," "answer," and so forth.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Most replies never even awnser the question. Most of them simply state an advantage of sexual reproduction.

Again, what part of "...it is a perplexing question and the answer is still being sought." didn't you understand? In fact, sexual reproduction does seem to offer an advantage. As I explained, the answer is still being sought. Everything is not known.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Its fine for science to have questions that still need answers, and i wouldnt say that just because science couldnt awnser a question yet means that God did it.

And I didn't say that you were claiming that to be the case. It's just that your arguments are typical of young earth creationists.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan However i never brought creationism into the debate, im simply stateing its a troubleing problem and im not going to accept evolution tell it fills in some of its gaps.

Ah! Then you are a god of the gaps creationist! I thought so.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan However im not saying that because i dont beleive in evolution i beleive in God.

It's the other way around. Because you do believe in YEC you reject evolutionary biology and science.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan You are right that science hasnt found all the awnsers and evolution is still incomplete so its a fine working hypothesis but it has not been confirmed yet.

That's not what I said. Evolution isn't an hypothesis. It is several theories that have been supported beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution has been confirmed to the point that non-acceptance is intentional ignorance.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan The real question is what testable statement does evolution make?

Just to get you started, read this;
Futuyma, Douglas J.1998. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 762 pages.

Really. Your ignorance is not evidence.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Tell me something that if it occured or if you could test it and have it come up negitive you would reject evolution?

No problem. Show me a horse fossil below the K-T boundary. Show me a whale fossil below the K-T boundary. Show me a hominid fossil below the K-T boundary. Do I need to go on?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan If it does not have a testable statement it is impossible to disprove.

Exactly! Evolution is testable. Creationism is not. I'm glad that you understand.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan IM not saying there isnt some evidence for evolution but there was also evidence for the mechanical ether and for spontaneous generation, both of these had testable claims that came up negitive, hence the theories were rejected, what claim does evolution make that is potentionally testable?

Can you say run on sentence? I knew you could!

See above for your answer. In fact, there is no evidence for "mechanical ether" or for "spontaneous generation." As you point out, when tested both hypotheses were shown to be incorrect.

Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned the basics of what you oppose? If you are unaware of testable claims of evolutionary theory, then it is because you lack the integrity to learn the basics of what you claim to oppose.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Other than waiting 1,000,000 years to see if it has occured more at a macro level.

Did that actually have meaning for you?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan If this is the testable claim then a scientist should not accept it as fact until the statement is positively confirmed. This question is not rather or not natural selection occurs as this has been shown to be true but rather or not one species can slowly change into another.

Did you get D in high school English? I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying. Evolution has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. "Rather or not?" Did you mean, "whether or not?"

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I understand that evolution is claimed to be the result of natural selection but how do we know?

Then you don't understand. Natural selection is only one mechanism of evolution. We know because the hypotheses have been tested. How sad that you have failed to educate yourself enough to understand the basics of what you claim to oppose.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan The question is should we accept evolution as fact or a working hypothesis.

You're confused. The facts of science are what we observe. Hypotheses offer tentative explanations for the facts. Hypotheses are predictive, and from these predictions experiments are constructed with the ability to falsify an hypothesis. If the hypothesis passes the test, they it may be called a theoryl

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I think it is not yet fact.

Sorry, but it has been observed and is therefor real. What do you mean by fact?

[JohnMK]

Quote by: Jagged Why did there have to be a first atom? Why couldnt there just have been atoms forever? People seem to accept the thought that this, everthing, will go on forever until the end of time with no end, so why couldnt it just have existed forever in the other way?

I have been attempting NOT to contemplate your question since a very young age. It started when I tried to imagine "nothingness." The color black doesn't do it justice.

[CrochityOldMan]

Okay clearly, i cant spell, clearly i should retake high school english(= maybe its because i read over my english papers for ignorant statements before i turned them in. I dont doubt i have issues when it comes to writing. So maybe im just an undereducated idiot creationist who beleives in things with out any reason other than my own ignorance. But just as a clarification, are saying that if you found one horse fossil bellow the K-T level you would reject evolution? Once agian i will reveal my ignorance and let you know that i dont know what the K-T level is. I imagine its one of the sedimentary levels that measures the passage of time because it forms at a constant rate. Let me know how wrong i am. With the statement about waiting a million years was i meant was: what is a testable statement evolution makes other than "One species will change into a new currently non-exsistent species in a long time" My point was that if that was its only testable claim then i would not beleive in evolution until this statement was proved correct.
I do maintain that for me to accept something as science it must have a testable claim that can be disproven. However i do beleive in some things that arent science. You on the other hand (i imagine, tell me if im wrong) would claim to only beleive what science says is true. So it is inconnsistent for you to beleive in something that is not testable, but not for me too do so.
There is another realm of human investigation that i beleive can be trusted, and that is reason and logic. Which is mainly why i beleive God exists. I do not think he can be emperically proven, nor do i think you can use reason to esatblish that he exists beyond all doubt. I think that humans obviously have problems understanding the origin of our universe and its complexity whether your veiw includes God or does not. Either way has problems, I merely think that God is the most probable. I think the only other logical claim is that man is not capable of understanding the origin of the universe. I would prefer to chose the more probable over making new choice at all.
Please proceed to launch exstiensive reasons why i am wrong, but please dont attack the fact that i obviously write at the level of a 4 year old(= Sorry about that. At least my comment is not as nonsensical as the one about the 1 or 2 atoms....i just hope you dont think im at the same level or a lower one. heh. Hopefully after your bash my theories enough i will go investigate yours more throughly. I suppose this is a bit off topic but all posts about problems with evolution ultimately boil down to creationism vs evolution, i dont ultimately beleive i can prove creationism but it cant be disproven because ignorant people like myself can always say GODIDIT!!! lol....at least you can take comfort in the fact that i am ignorant and uniformed and you are correct. I look forward to being bashed.
A CrochEty Old Man

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jagged Why did there have to be a first atom? Why couldnt there just have been atoms forever? People seem to accept the thought that this, everthing, will go on forever until the end of time with no end, so why couldnt it just have existed forever in the other way? Also. What? One atom wouldnt/couldnt create more atoms. the beginning of that post demonstrates absolutely no knowladge of matter.

#1
Are you suggesting that there could have been a set of atoms that stands for world's fundamental element ?
Even though, how that set of atoms emerged to manifest its presence ?

#2
Can you explain that process a single atom is cap(able) to create anything, without interacting with(in) an environment it resides ?

[Rainbow]

@CrochityOldMan

I am afraid you have misinterpreted thoughts expressed within my post.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Okay clearly, i cant spell, clearly i should retake high school english(= maybe its because i read over my english papers for ignorant statements before i turned them in. I dont doubt i have issues when it comes to writing. So maybe im just an undereducated idiot creationist who beleives in things with out any reason other than my own ignorance. But just as a clarification, are saying that if you found one horse fossil bellow the K-T level you would reject evolution? Once agian i will reveal my ignorance and let you know that i dont know what the K-T level is. I imagine its one of the sedimentary levels that measures the passage of time because it forms at a constant rate. Let me know how wrong i am. With the statement about waiting a million years was i meant was: what is a testable statement evolution makes other than "One species will change into a new currently non-exsistent species in a long time" My point was that if that was its only testable claim then i would not beleive in evolution until this statement was proved correct. I do maintain that for me to accept something as science it must have a testable claim that can be disproven. However i do beleive in some things that arent science. You on the other hand (i imagine, tell me if im wrong) would claim to only beleive what science says is true. So it is inconnsistent for you to beleive in something that is not testable, but not for me too do so. There is another realm of human investigation that i beleive can be trusted, and that is reason and logic. Which is mainly why i beleive God exists. I do not think he can be emperically proven, nor do i think you can use reason to esatblish that he exists beyond all doubt. I think that humans obviously have problems understanding the origin of our universe and its complexity whether your veiw includes God or does not. Either way has problems, I merely think that God is the most probable. I think the only other logical claim is that man is not capable of understanding the origin of the universe. I would prefer to chose the more probable over making new choice at all. Please proceed to launch exstiensive reasons why i am wrong, but please dont attack the fact that i obviously write at the level of a 4 year old(= Sorry about that. At least my comment is not as nonsensical as the one about the 1 or 2 atoms....i just hope you dont think im at the same level or a lower one. heh. Hopefully after your bash my theories enough i will go investigate yours more throughly. I suppose this is a bit off topic but all posts about problems with evolution ultimately boil down to creationism vs evolution, i dont ultimately beleive i can prove creationism but it cant be disproven because ignorant people like myself can always say GODIDIT!!! lol....at least you can take comfort in the fact that i am ignorant and uniformed and you are correct. I look forward to being bashed. A CrochEty Old Man

On the point about evolution, we can see evolution in action if we observe bacteria and viruses. They have a far, far greater reproduction rate than we do, which is why it's possible to observe their evolution. Viruses, notably that bastard cold virus, adapt and change with virtually every subject they come into contact with. They adapt to their environment so they can live long enough to be spread to the next poor bastard. This involves a change, an evolution, in their make-up.

[Jern_Sandyer]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I already posted this in the Philosphy debate seciont, but figured id also ask in the science forum since it obviously spans both sections. have wondered about how sex evolved for quite some time, if anyone could shed some light on this issue it would be appreciated, because it seems to be a legitament problem. According to the current theory of evolution the first organisms reproduced asexually, so at some point organisms must have developed the ability to reproduce sexually. I know there are some explanations at a unicellular level of cells connecting and exchanging DNA, but on a multicellular scale there seems to be a large problem. In order for sexual reproducation to be possible it takes a male and female, so a male and female would have to evolve seperately(while reproducing asexually) to the point where two of these different organisms get together and decide to reproduce. It seems very improbable that two such organism would evolve seperately and in such a compatible way. A completely worthless penis would have too be grown and mainted for generations without haveing a purpose, and then be lucky enough to run into a female that had developed an equally useless organ set over an extended period of time. How is this possible? I understand that there may be an advantage to sexual reproduction, but even if it can for sure be shown to be advantageous this does not explain how it happened. All traits that evolve are advantageous but not all advantageous traits evolve. Please dont awnser this post by showing how sexual reproduction is advantageous. Instead try and purpose a mechanism for how two sexes could have feasibly evolved. And if it came from a creature that produced both sexually and asexually why would that creature ever lose the ability to reproduce both ways as that would clearly be an advantage over just one or the other.

Well just taking a couple of moments to think about this I have a possible scenario. I'm ignoring everything up to bacterial conjugation and how that developed but I'm going to start from there. If a bacterium developed a particular set of genes or a gene which allowed it enhanced ability to 'deposit' it's genetic makeup in another bacterium that would basically send it in the direction in forming the male side of sexual dimorphism and a bacterium of the same species of bacterium could develop an ablilty to recieve genes better. With enough random encounters you would get two groups that would be more slightly inclined to be male and another that would be female, eventually this would lead to the development to the X and Y chromosomes. This species would be the first to have male and female traits. Eventually when multi-cellular organisms develop the sexual form of reproduction would become more advantageously for making the larger multicellular organisms. This is all random but isn't that a principle of evolution.

[gallo]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Okay clearly, i cant spell, clearly i should retake high school english(= maybe its because i read over my english papers for ignorant statements before i turned them in. I dont doubt i have issues when it comes to writing. So maybe im just an undereducated idiot creationist who beleives in things with out any reason other than my own ignorance.

Could be. It could also be a sign of carelessness and lack of attention to detail.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan But just as a clarification, are saying that if you found one horse fossil bellow the K-T level you would reject evolution?

Pretty much, yes. It would certainly mean that much of what we understand to be true isn't.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Once agian i will reveal my ignorance and let you know that i dont know what the K-T level is. I imagine its one of the sedimentary levels that measures the passage of time because it forms at a constant rate. Let me know how wrong i am.

The K-T boundary is the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary Periods. It is about 65 million years old and in many places is quite visible. I grew up in Montana where it is visible in hillsides in many places around the state. It contains an extraordinary amount of iridium. The fossils below the K-T boundary come right up to it, but above it, there are no fossils for quite some distance before they slowly begin to be found again. There are no dinosaur fossils above the K-T boundary.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan With the statement about waiting a million years was i meant was: what is a testable statement evolution makes other than "One species will change into a new currently non-exsistent species in a long time" My point was that if that was its only testable claim then i would not beleive in evolution until this statement was proved correct.

Then it's a good thing that it isn't the only testable statement. Evolution has been tested over and over for abut 150 years. It has passed the tests to the point that virtually every qualified scientist in the world accepts evolution as true.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I do maintain that for me to accept something as science it must have a testable claim that can be disproven.

Then what is your problem? Is it that you haven't bothered to understand science or how it works? Is it that you know so little about biology that you think that evolutionary theory hasn't been tested?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan However i do beleive in some things that arent science. You on the other hand (i imagine, tell me if im wrong) would claim to only beleive what science says is true. So it is inconnsistent for you to beleive in something that is not testable, but not for me too do so.

Why would I make such a silly claim? So let me get this straight. You believe in things that are not testable, so you therefore reject evolutionary theory which has been tested, while you think that I only believe in what is testable so you claim that I believe in untestable evolution.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan There is another realm of human investigation that i beleive can be trusted, and that is reason and logic. Which is mainly why i beleive God exists.

Ah. Then you are saying that you have no faith but "believe" in god because that belief can be tested?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I do not think he can be emperically proven, nor do i think you can use reason to esatblish that he exists beyond all doubt.

You should have stopped with "exists." Otherwise you are again claiming that you have no faith.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I think that humans obviously have problems understanding the origin of our universe and its complexity whether your veiw includes God or does not. Either way has problems, I merely think that God is the most probable.

Why claim magic beings when they aren't necessary?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I think the only other logical claim is that man is not capable of understanding the origin of the universe.

Why is that logical?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I would prefer to chose the more probable over making new choice at all.

Then why invent magical beings, and what makes your particular magic being more probable that that of some other culture?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan I suppose this is a bit off topic but all posts about problems with evolution ultimately boil down to creationism vs evolution, i dont ultimately beleive i can prove creationism but it cant be disproven because ignorant people like myself can always say GODIDIT!!!

Actually, problems with evolution have nothing to do with creationism. Evolution is science, based on empirical evidence and investigated by the scientific method. Creationism is irrelevant. The reason that there is a discussion is that creationists have attempted to force their religion on our children in public schools. The discussion has become one of creationists claiming that their religion is science and then being unable to support that claim. Without creationism, evolutionary theory would be the same. Creationism offers no problems for science.

[CrochityOldMan]

Alright i suppose i should clarify about the testability of evolution. Mostly i should clarify the definition of evolution. What i am rejecting is not that some bacteria can adapt and for new resitences what i am rejecting is the idea that life could form by random chance and then through random chance develope all the way into human beings. Perhaps all horse fossils are above the K-T level, but even if they are this information does not prove evolution it is merely consistent with it. Meaning that there could be many explanations for this but that evolution is one consistent explanation. What i desire to be verified is that
A) life can spontanteously be formed through random chance
B) Single cell organisms can develope into mutlicellular organisms.
C) Multicellular organisms can evolve from one species to another
D) Multicellular organisms can develope the ability to reproduce sexually.


I dont deny that some components of the theory of evolution have been validated. But simply because bacteria develope immunites does not mean that A,B,C, and D are true. The location of the horses fosils simply mean that it is probable that they exsisted at one point, and not at other point in time. Not that they evolved from the preexisteing life forms.
When i say evolution has no testable predictions i mean no predictions that when shown to be true completely verify the theory. I do not disupute that much evidence is consistent with the theory, however the most extreme claims made by evolution have not been verified.

[gallo]

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Alright i suppose i should clarify about the testability of evolution. Mostly i should clarify the definition of evolution. What i am rejecting is not that some bacteria can adapt and for new resitences what i am rejecting is the idea that life could form by random chance and then through random chance develope all the way into human beings.

Then the discussion is done, since you are not arguing against the theory of evolution in any form. You are arguing against a straw man that has little to do with real evolutionary biology. You are using a religious idea invented to dupe the ignorant, who believe that they are talking about evolution.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Perhaps all horse fossils are above the K-T level, but even if they are this information does not prove evolution it is merely consistent with it.

Scientific theories are not proven. Proof is a matter of law, mathematics, and alcoholic beverages.

The particular location of horse fossils is not proof of evolution. You don't seem to understand what science is and how it works. The paleontology of horses is evidence for and is explained by evolutionary theory. There are several species of modern horse that date back only 2 or 3 million years in the fossil record. Up to about 5 million years ago there were many more kinds of equids, at least 10 major groups of animals, that can be called horses in only the broadest sense. Around 15 to 20 million years ago animals that resembled horses with three toes on each foot lived. The fossil record shows that all of these animals had a single ancestor that lived about 55 million years ago called Hyracotherium. This succession of fossils through time is explained by evolutionary theory.

Wales are another example. There have been lots of well preserved whale fossils found that date back to almost 60 million years. Those fossils are of terrestrial animals. One of the oldest discovered is the 52 million year old Pakicetus, which has many characteristics in common with older artiodactyls. After that there are found in the fossil record in order, demonstrating less terrestrial and more aquatic lifestyles, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus (50 mya), Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, and finally the modern Mysticetes and Odontocetes. The Dalanistes could probably walk on land while the Rhodocetus probably couldn't. All of them had 4 limbs except the modern whales. But no modern whale has ever been found in the same strata as a Basilosaurus and none of the whales from the fossil record are found in layers older than about 30 my. All explained very nicely by evolutionary theory.

By the way, did you happen to see the news story about the bottle nosed dolphin that was found that had hind legs? How do you imagine that happened?

Quote by: CrochityOldMan Meaning that there could be many explanations for this but that evolution is one consistent explanation.

Actually, there aren't very many explanations for the fossil record that are consistent and logical. The best explanation is that of common descent.

Quote by: CrochityOldMan