Big coincidence: all species reproduce?

[leegao]

Unfortunately I'm not a creationist. The fact being that he went well out of his way to disprove every tiny section of my point in order to call me ignorant just so he can reaffirm the exact point that I've made all along continues to perplex me. I stated that Sexual reproduction contains evolutionary advantages and he counters me because I'm too ignorant to know the correct terminology for "survival of the fittest" is natural selection even when I have obviously used the same exact words. Also please tell me that a human baby is not the result of mitotic division of the original zygote because otherwise we would all be single celled organisms. And because I question what the author's original meaning of an "offspring" is I somehow became more "ignorant" because I "could not grasp what an offspring is" And what happens at the end of his point? He reaffirms basically everything I said. So I naturally wonder why a grown man such as himself with such vast expertise can't seem to stop arguing with an "ignorant" and moronic kid over such petty little mistakes that doesn't even effect this topic what-so-ever.

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: Isherwood Let's not let this become a contest of personalities. As long as I've been reading gallo's posts I've been reminded of several professors I had in college. When speaking on their topic of expertise, they do not back off from defending what they know.

I agree, but think that perhaps Gallo could be a little more sensitive (as an educator) toward the misinformed members of this forum. Even though it is a shame that some don't take the time to read up on the subject in question (even if it be through Wikipedia!), before commenting on it.

[svstevenr]

Yes thank you guys for 20 times clarifying that idea of natural selection. I just find it interesting that 30 million species all, completely different in physical structure and design, all have this type of system in common. Yes all the ones that don't have been rooted out, but that is still millions and millions of organisms that all developed in a similar way.

[nerdvincent]

@ Svstevenr: They didn't all develop it in a similar way: they inherited it from an ancestor who had this functionality. That's all.

[leegao]

Not necessarily, the only commonality between an E. Coli and you is that you both have mitosis somewhere along reproduction.

[JaneDoe321]

Aren't most (all?) organisms on Earth carbon based, too? WHoa. I need a moment to reevaluate my world view.

[gallo]

Quote by: leegao I get it, I'm an uneducated moron who's 16 years old and is judged by some "evolutionary expert" who could not find himself to stop arguing with a kid.

Grow up. How was I to know that you were a child? You expressed opinions that were wrong. In fact, I am an evolutionary biologist. I corrected your mistakes. If you are unable to accept that, they why are you here?

It's cool, it took you a page and half to describe mistakes that I made and then wound around affirming basically everything I said.

Nonsense.

After a while your attempts just seem sad. If you want to take this to a personal level PM me but don't go around calling people ignorant just because you think you're better than them.

Actually, I don't think that I'm better than anyone. Why is it the the ignorant always make such claims. What I claim is that I am discussing my field of expertise while you are babbling about things that you don't understand.

Trust me, doesn't make you seem smarter when you keep on arguing with a kid over a petty mistake.

Your mistake was not petty. It was a major misunderstanding. You know little about the topic of evolutionary biology where I know a lot. If you are so smart, why didn't you make an effort to educate yourself before you spoke?

I refuse to be judged by someone who can't debate without going onto the personal level.

Correcting your errors is not personal. Either you know what your are talking about or you do not. You do not. You talk nonsense. Whether you refuse or not, I judge you to be basically ignorant of the topic.

Grow Up for god's sake.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself because you know so little and are embarrassed. Your pathetic effort to insult is childish. Make an effort to learn. Sadly, you might have actually asked questions and corrected your ignorant understanding. However, I'm not so willing to help you now, since you feel that insult is the way to go when you meet someone who knows more than you. As with all incompetents, you overestimate your own ability. I had been an evolutionary biologist for more than 16 years when you were born. When you talk nonsense, I will correct you. Learn first, then speak. Otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

[leegao]

Grow up. How was I to know that you were a child? You expressed opinions that were wrong. In fact, I am an evolutionary biologist. I corrected your mistakes. If you are unable to accept that, they why are you here?

Very well, let's examine your previous post.

Are you using phrases like "devoid of the ability" in an effort to make yourself sound educated? Why not just say, "If an organism can't reproduce..."?

This sounded personal to me, the statement directly implies that I would naturally sound uneducated.

And what on earth is "the evolutionary cycle"? I've been an evolutionary biologist for over 40 years and I have never heard anything about an "evolutionary cycle," at least not in any sense properly applied to evolutionary biology. Unless you meant merely that organisms produce offspring, some die and some live to reproduce. If that is the case, why didn't you just say so?

I'll be sure to relay your message to my bio teacher.

As has been pointed out, an organism that can't reproduce is extinct.

Yes, that was my point, I don't see any mistakes there

Well, it actually isn't survival of the fittest. Darwin didn't like that term and didn't use it until the 5th edition (out of 6) of "Origin". Today, biologists don't use that term since it is so far off the mark. Even Darwin, when he was finally convinced to use the term because it had become so popular that he feared that people would not understand that the popular term was a reference to his theory. Nevertheless, he never used the term "survival of the fittest" without making it clear that he meant natural selection.

Which is why I said Natural selection, or the survival of the fittest.

Today, creationists and the uneducated use the term. Biologists don't and only are aware of it from an historical perspective.

I'm sure my bio teacher would be delighted to hear that.

In what way is this creature impressive, I mean more so than a Blue Heron, or a Cormorant, or even a Planaria. Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

I'm having trouble answering this one especially since I gave out a hypothetical scenario in which an impressive creature (maybe it's ability to survive is really well, I don't know, fit the words to what you think an the most impressive creature you might imagine) would have no evolutionary advantage if its ability to reproduce was taken away.

Are you not aware that "devoid" is an adjective and that you have used it incorrectly and thus rendered your sentence meaningless? What do you mean by "its gene."

Thank you for the grammar lesson, pretend the sentence is in conditional tense

Don't you know that there is no known living organism with a single gene? How does natural selection "consider" a gene?

Genes, happy?

What is that supposed to mean? There is no such thing as mitotic result of sexual reproduction. Part of the process of sexual reproduction is meiosis. In sexual organisms, mitosis is known as growth and maintenance, not reproduction.

Okay, fine, the "growth and maintenance" of the zygote.

Uh...that's not true. Organisms that produce identical copies of themselves are usually single cells or colonial. Single cell organisms reproduce by simple fission - in other words, mitosis. Some single celled organisms do conjoin and exchange genetic information, but they then undergo normal mitosis to produce offspring. Other organisms that produce identical copies are usually multi-cellular and do so by budding - there are several observed methods, and since you don't even seem to grasp what "offspring" means, I suspect that any explanation will be for naught.

Please take a moment and reread what I have wrote, note the keywords (rather than) that implied the statement is concerning a false scenario.

Anyway, it does seem that sexual reproduction offers an evolutionary advantage. Otherwise there would be more parthenogenic organisms. The hypothesis is that sexual reproduction, even though the rate of reproduction is half of that of a parthenogenic organism, because of recombination, another mechanism of evolution (like natural selection is a mechanism of evolution), seems to increase the genetic diversity on which natural selection acts..

Thank you for reaffirming my point that sexual reproduction has an evolutionary advantage.

Note most of the mistakes that you've corrected are only concerning the terminology, none are opinions, many contains/implies personal insults.

Actually, I don't think that I'm better than anyone. Why is it the the ignorant always make such claims. What I claim is that I am discussing my field of expertise while you are babbling about things that you don't understand.

Your mistake was not petty. It was a major misunderstanding. You know little about the topic of evolutionary biology where I know a lot. If you are so smart, why didn't you make an effort to educate yourself before you spoke?

Sounds like self-contradiction to me. If everyone was afraid to speak for fear of been called ignorant, then I'd rather speak up and stand up for myself.

Correcting your errors is not personal. Either you know what your are talking about or you do not. You do not. You talk nonsense. Whether you refuse or not, I judge you to be basically ignorant of the topic.

Then please leave the trash-talk out of your responses. I don't know how it is from where you're from but from here, if someone calls me ignorant or uneducated I take that as a personal offense.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself because you know so little and are embarrassed. Your pathetic effort to insult is childish. Make an effort to learn. Sadly, you might have actually asked questions and corrected your ignorant understanding. However, I'm not so willing to help you now, since you feel that insult is the way to go when you meet someone who knows more than you. As with all incompetents, you overestimate your own ability. I had been an evolutionary biologist for more than 16 years when you were born. When you talk nonsense, I will correct you. Learn first, then speak. Otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Remember, Knowledge is relative, Never once have I claimed to know more than your, nor have I ever claimed to be an expert on the area, merely that I know sufficient knowledge to answer the topic, and yes, I have answered the topic. By your philosophy I guess the only one in this whole entire forum who has the ability to speak would be you since you're probably the only evolution biologist here, oh well, why don't you go call the rest of the people here ignorant then?

I came to this forum to learn and to debate, but I did not come here to be pushed around because I refuse to be judged to be inferior. Shame that I'm one of the only few people in my school to make an effort to learn, yet these "experts" have barred the door of education with inflammatory and sarcastic remarks, pretending to be better than everyone else.

[Matt W]

Let's drop the personal comments, please. It takes nothing to be civil. Please do so.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: leegao Not necessarily, the only commonality between an E. Coli and you is that you both have mitosis somewhere along reproduction.

Yep. So they are both able to reproduce, aren't they? E. Coli reproduces by mitosis, and so did the human's unicellular ancestor. Only they didn't evolve the same way. Where is the problem?

[leegao]

No problems at all, my post wasn't directed at your response but was rather a response to svstevenr's post. Basically my point was that the reproductive process differs vastly between mammals, aves, amphibians, reptiles, sponges, plants (and even inside this kingdom, we still see diverse methods of reproduction. ie: Bryophytes vs Pterophytes vs Flowering plants), different types of protists, etc. While the difference in the reproduction between reptiles and birds are small relative to those between an E. Colli and us, it's still incorrect to assume that the majority (species-wise) of life have the same type of reproductive system.

[crazydiamond]

he has lost his/hers/its patience with us?