Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinizing Sex Causes Pain
CEH ^ | June 15, 2009

Posted on 06/16/2009 9:20:53 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

June 15, 2009 — Sex brings pleasure to many, but pain to Darwinists. Why? Because they can’t figure it out. Nick Lane is a case in point. In New Scientist, he wrote...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; evolution; fools; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; jewish; judaism; moralabsolutes; science

1 posted on 06/16/2009 9:20:53 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Read the “Stupid Evolutionary Quote of the Week.” The just keep getting stupider and stupider...by which I mean more and more entertaining :o)

All the best—GGG


2 posted on 06/16/2009 9:24:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


3 posted on 06/16/2009 9:27:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
more rubbish from Luddites, flat earthers and geocentrist......
4 posted on 06/16/2009 9:28:14 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Well, sex with Darwin would be painful.
He’s been dead for over a hundred years...


5 posted on 06/16/2009 9:32:30 AM PDT by frankenMonkey (www.citizendirect.org - this domain name for sale)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frankenMonkey

“Well, sex with Darwin would be painful.
He’s been dead for over a hundred years...”

Brings true meaning to the term ‘boner’!


6 posted on 06/16/2009 9:34:12 AM PDT by charmedone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

==more rubbish from Luddites, flat earthers and geocentrist

I’m glad to hear that yet another FReeper has realized that believing in Darwin’s materialist creation myth is the equivalent of being a flat earth, geocentric, anti-science, Luddite.


7 posted on 06/16/2009 9:36:05 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; All

That person is telling the truth..


8 posted on 06/16/2009 9:37:06 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Can't Stop the Signal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If the Darwinist sect of the evolution faith want to have sex with monkeys, it’s their business.


9 posted on 06/16/2009 9:39:34 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

The article is ridiculous on it’s very face. Well, it’s not really an article, it’s more like a blog post without atribution. The argument did not include the full context of Nick Lane’s statement. He was comparing the reproductive strategy (tongue in cheek) of having a single sex that reproduced by making copies of itself versus a seperate sex species that requires spending more energy attracting mates. The post draws simple minded conclusions from their citations.


10 posted on 06/16/2009 9:41:53 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“Sex improves the efficiency of selection, allowing good genes to recombine away from the junk residing in their genetic backgrounds,” says Otto. “As the good genes spread, they then carry along the sex genes, beating out the genes for cloning, and often overcoming the costs of sex.”

Creationists would correctly recognize sexual reproduction as a method for purging deleterious mutations from the population. Not 100% effective, but slowing the general tendency for deleterious mutations to accumulate in the population gene pool. IOW, it is a fault-tolerant mechanism. Add it to the multiple layers of fault-tolerance built into life in the same way that triplet-codon amino acid coding, DNA error-correcting mechanisms and diploid chromosome structure are fault-tolerant mechanisms.

This also explains excess reproductive capacity. It exists as a buffer to ensure population survival not only from environmental impacts but also as the level of deleterious mutation rises in a population and uses up that excess reproductive capacity through miscarriage and infertility.

The entire biological structure of life from DNA structure, amino acid coding, chromosome structure, reproduction and excess reproductive capacity is designed to resist decay, not to evolve.

11 posted on 06/16/2009 9:44:41 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

Well... GGG has carte blance from both God and JimRob to post this drivel in news/activism soo... It’s kinda like the whole fairtax ruse...truth and facts don’t matter. Just pitchforks and torches.


12 posted on 06/16/2009 9:49:33 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Excellent reply, GourmetDan! In other words, unlike the Evos who tie themselves in knots over this, sex makes sense from a creationist perspective!!!


13 posted on 06/16/2009 9:51:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Leave it to the creationists to stick with popular magazines for their critiques.

Here's a more interesting article.

14 posted on 06/16/2009 9:59:59 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

15 posted on 06/16/2009 10:02:27 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

We must expose the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism wherever its tentacles are found to have a stranglehold on the ideology of science. And this is especially needed in the popular scientific press, which is what the vast majority of people read after all.


16 posted on 06/16/2009 10:04:12 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Good article.


17 posted on 06/16/2009 10:07:28 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

And thank you for your service.

(How do you get away with sleeping only 3 hours a night?)


18 posted on 06/16/2009 10:18:20 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

19 posted on 06/16/2009 10:19:53 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I haven’t slept an 8 hour night since I was a teenager - many decades ago. I just don’t shut down. Honestly, I don’t feel unrested either.

As I understand it Leonardo Da Vinci slept three times a day for 20 minutes. He has me beaten by two hours.


20 posted on 06/16/2009 10:21:40 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; GodGunsGuts
Creationists would correctly recognize sexual reproduction as a method for purging deleterious mutations from the population. Not 100% effective, but slowing the general tendency for deleterious mutations to accumulate in the population gene pool. IOW, it is a fault-tolerant mechanism. Add it to the multiple layers of fault-tolerance built into life in the same way that triplet-codon amino acid coding, DNA error-correcting mechanisms and diploid chromosome structure are fault-tolerant mechanisms.

Like GGG said, excellent reply, GourmetDan! Obviously this fact never occurred to the tie-themselves-in-knots-rather-than-admit-God-exists "evolutionary biologists".

Once again, we see an educated poster on FreeRepublic totally exceed and outdo so-called "scientific consensus".

21 posted on 06/16/2009 10:31:07 AM PDT by WondrousCreation (Good science regarding the Earth's past only reveals what Christians have known for centuries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I’m glad to hear that yet another FReeper has realized that believing in Darwin’s materialist creation myth is the equivalent of being a flat earth, geocentric, anti-science, Luddite.

your cute smug little statement is obviously bogus as everyone (with half a brain anyway) knew I was talking about the Creation-Evolution Headlines blog article in my comparison and not the Darwinist who was missquoted....but that's ok....keep your head up your @$$ and you will get far in life.

22 posted on 06/16/2009 10:57:45 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I used to believe in evolution, but it is this issue of how sexual reproduction could have evolved that caused me to lose my faith in Darwinian evolution. Evolution begins with the simplest one-celled form of life (as evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, only the diversity of species) which goes through a series of random mutations and natural selection, evolving into the wide variety of more complex forms we have today. As most life forms, from mammals to fish to crustaceans to plants, now reproduce sexually, then either the evolution of sexual reproduction occurred very, very early, before these life forms branched off from each other or it occurred multiple times along the branches. However, it seems like almost a miracle that sexual reproduction could have occurred even once. Could the male reproductive system and the female reproductive system, operating in all their complexity and synchronicity, have evolved in a single glorious mutation that proved so competitively advantageous that it replaced its predecessors? Otherwise, it must have happened in incremental steps. Whether large or small increments, fast (punctuated) or slow, in order for unintelligent, unguided evolution to have occurred, then each partially evolved step in this process had to be such an advantage to the organism that it replaced the previous generation in life’s competition, but how could a partially evolved sexual reproductive system provide much, or any, advantage? It is impossible that sexual reproduction was the result of a single random mutation and it is implausible that it evolved in increasing advantageous partial stages. It really does take a lot of faith to believe in evolution (too much for me).


23 posted on 06/16/2009 10:57:52 AM PDT by Teotwawki (Obama was right about one thing, I am clinging to my Bible and my gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WondrousCreation; GodGunsGuts

Thanks guys.

It’s good to know that someone else gets it.


24 posted on 06/16/2009 11:01:57 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
If biological systems are set up to resist changing their DNA, perhaps you can explain why the bacterial stress response involves using error prone DNA polymerase and curtailing the use of mutation repair enzymes.

Why would a bacteria under stress have a response system set up that increases its mutation rate?

25 posted on 06/16/2009 11:05:54 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Dude, you're working WAYYY too hard at this. Let me help you out with some Automation

GGG Posting Short Form

Check All that Apply
I Read It In Answers In Genesis
I Read It In Creation Safaris
I Read It at The Discovery Institute
I Read It at The Institute for Creation Research
I Saw It At The Creation Museum

 

This is About
Refuting Something Darwin wrote over 100 years ago
Proving All Geology points to a World Wide Flood
Proving the Earth is less than 10000 Years Old
Linking "Darwinism" to:
  Nazism
  Socialism
  Communism
  Antidisestablishmentarianism
Something I don't understand, but it seems to support my viewpoint

 

I Would Also Like to Post

My Nifty Budda Picture  

My Nifty Sniffing Dog Picture

My Naked Emperor Picture

My Mars Rover Picture

My Road Signs Picture

Just check the appropriate boxes, and you're good to go!  The cool thing is, just as much thought goes into every post!  You get the CONVENIENCE of automated posting without any compromise to your usual quality!

26 posted on 06/16/2009 11:18:58 AM PDT by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WondrousCreation

“Like GGG said, excellent reply, GourmetDan! Obviously this fact never occurred to the tie-themselves-in-knots-rather-than-admit-God-exists “evolutionary biologists”.”

—actually, that was all basic “intro to biology” stuff that no one (including ‘evolutionary biologists’) would disagree with. :-)


27 posted on 06/16/2009 11:20:57 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

Perfect.
And perfectly the truth.


28 posted on 06/16/2009 11:31:36 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

LMFAO.....sums it up nicely.


29 posted on 06/16/2009 11:32:02 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

Man...didja see the article below that one...entitled “How old is this germ?”.....now THERE’s some fascinating scientific analysis.....summed up as a false claim that “No scientist would have “speculated” such a thing before.” (nonsense claim).....and a string of absurd comparisons designed to get the ignorant reader to think the notion of surface-area to volume ratios and how they relate to metabolism in bacteria...is absurd.

Ignorant writers writing for ignorant readers.


30 posted on 06/16/2009 11:48:36 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

I did read down and after the first few laughs decided to not waste anymore time with it.


31 posted on 06/16/2009 11:57:29 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

lol, very creative.


32 posted on 06/16/2009 12:02:41 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"If biological systems are set up to resist changing their DNA, perhaps you can explain why the bacterial stress response involves using error prone DNA polymerase and curtailing the use of mutation repair enzymes. Why would a bacteria under stress have a response system set up that increases its mutation rate?"

Bacteria increasing their mutation rate in response to stress does not mean that fault-tolerant processes are not normally in place. Normal fault-tolerant amino-acid coding schemes are always in place and error-correction schemes are normally in place.

This is an exceptional response to environmental stimuli where bacteria 'switch off' normal processes and begin to search the 'design space' of their genome trying to find a survivable niche before they die. Being haploid (rather than diploid) aids in this process.

The final thing to understand is that the fact that this capability exists does not mean that it 'evolved'.

33 posted on 06/16/2009 1:09:45 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Teotwawki

The Darwinista’s would counter that believing in a God that just ‘did’ all the heavy lifting requires too much faith.

They’d also say that if you have enough faith to believe in God, then you have enough faith to believe that sexual reproduction is part of evolution.


34 posted on 06/16/2009 1:25:40 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder ("Other than ending SLAVERY, FASCISM, NAZISM and COMMUNISM, war has never solved anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder
Evolution is supposed to be science and science shouldn't require faith. In science, you should be able to test and demonstrate. I'm even willing to explore theoretical science and probabilities as long as we acknowledge that's the realm we're working in.
When I lost faith in evolution, I wasn't a religious person. The “science” of Darwin fell under it's own weight. It was only after that I started looking at alternatives to evolution to explain life's questions.
35 posted on 06/16/2009 2:02:30 PM PDT by Teotwawki (Obama was right about one thing, I am clinging to my Bible and my gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

Man, I just saw this for a second time....and am bookmarking it for future use...with proper notation, of course.


36 posted on 06/16/2009 9:20:40 PM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson