Skip to comments.Darwinizing Sex Causes Pain
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 cant figure it out. Nick Lane is a case in point. In New Scientist, he wrote...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
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
Thanks for the ping!
Well, sex with Darwin would be painful.
He’s been dead for over a hundred years...
“Well, sex with Darwin would be painful.
Hes been dead for over a hundred years...”
Brings true meaning to the term ‘boner’!
==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.
That person is telling the truth..
If the Darwinist sect of the evolution faith want to have sex with monkeys, it’s their business.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent reply, GourmetDan! In other words, unlike the Evos who tie themselves in knots over this, sex makes sense from a creationist perspective!!!
Here's a more interesting article.
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.
And thank you for your service.
(How do you get away with sleeping only 3 hours a night?)
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.
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".
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.
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 doesnt 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).
It’s good to know that someone else gets it.
Why would a bacteria under stress have a response system set up that increases its mutation rate?
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:|
|□||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!
“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. :-)
And perfectly the truth.
LMFAO.....sums it up nicely.
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.
I did read down and after the first few laughs decided to not waste anymore time with it.
lol, very creative.
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'.
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.
Man, I just saw this for a second time....and am bookmarking it for future use...with proper notation, of course.
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.