But no Freeper would do that another Freeper, right?
I remember the CreVo threads well.
Posted on 05/18/2018 8:07:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable "bounded" evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man "unbounded" evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin's extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of which—in three particulars—is fatal to his Grand Theory.
That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can't explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. The way he talked around the edges makes one wonder how Darwin could not have considered the difficulty, especially since he candidly addressed a number of other difficulties with his theory. In his books, Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex. Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it's clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:
1. Natural selection could not have "selected" from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction. If, as evolution theory teaches, asexual replication was the sole, primitive form of biological reproduction on the planet, in order to move the evolutionary process forward to sexual reproduction it first would have been necessary to evolve separate genders. Male and female forms would have to appear separately, concurrently, and compatibly in order for the first-ever sexual reproduction to occur. Because genderless asexual DNA only enables the production of exact copies, there is no DNA information that possibly could be "selected" to produce never-before-seen gender.
2. Natural selection could not possibly have evolved even the most elementary form of sex bymeiosis—a radically-different form of reproduction from "exact-copy" asexual mitosis. Unlikemitosis, in which an organism simply clones itself by making identical "selfies," male/female meiosisrequires a precise 50% reduction of (compatible) chromosomes, a mind-boggling process of "crossing over," and a breathtaking recombination whereby the offspring is a genetically-different organism from any other that's ever existed. Without having all the right kinds of bells and whistles in place simultaneously in Generation One, the first-ever prototype of male/female meiosis never could have gotten off the ground to move on to Generation Two of sexually-reproducing creatures. No gradual process of natural selection possibly could have evolved this revolutionary form of reproduction.
3. Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first sexually-compatible pair of any species in order to move to the second generation of that species, nor certainly to any other, "higher" species along the supposed chain of common descent from microbe to man. How do we know we have a distinct species? When it can't reproduce with any other species on the planet. Species are not just different in form and function. Most crucially, they're sexually unique. Despite certain similarities with the mating and reproductive processes of other species, each species is unique in its sexual equipment, its particular method of reproduction, and in its sexual instincts. Since no random, gradual, natural process possibly could have provided the first compatible pair of each of millions of sexually-unique species, no upwardly evolving "evolutionary tree" ever occurred.
Taken together, the first two problems are quietly acknowledged by evolutionists to be the "Queen of evolutionary problems" for which, despite their best efforts, they have no answers. Remarkably, the third (even more obvious) problem is never once addressed by evolutionists. Could that be because, as with Darwin himself, mentioning it would risk destroying an elegant, but fatally-flawed theory?
No, go ahead, be my guest.
bkmk
Since I made no claim or assertion, how can I argue?
Evolution can’t prove how the first cell emerged,
I didn't know that was one of the things demanded of evolution.
“Every mammal, insect, avain, amphibian, and aquatic life form relies upon two distinct sexes to survive. “
You are wrong about that. Same as the writer if the article is wrong.
No. And I never claimed I could.
But no Freeper would do that another Freeper, right?
I remember the CreVo threads well.
crevo wars you mean- not everyone claiming to be a Christian is infact a Christian, and not aLL Christians act appropriately- Christians aren’t perfect contrary to expectations by the unsaved- but those thread wars were pretty nasty by the evo crowd back then- then they got booted and started some anti-FR anti-Christian ‘science site’- can’t remember the name now- but they all banned together to complain about FR and the Christians here lol
Every mammal, insect, avain, amphibian, and aquatic life form relies upon two distinct sexes to survive.
In animals, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell
Fraid so. In fact it is not enough to be a Christian, you have to be the right kind of Christian of which there are many definitions and almost all of them preach a doctrine of works not Grace. Oh well....
For #3, nothing says self-replication didn’t happen first and then the sexes evolved.
That said, the PRIMARY reason for evolution to not be believed in its current form is that a big bucket of chemicals that life is made from never seems to magically create life.
Take a big bucket of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorus, and they simply do not form a DNA strand. The possible combinations of DNA are astronomical. Evolutionists claim a magical transformation happened by accident where these chemicals magically formed a DNA strand and life was born.
“No. And I never claimed I could.”
gosh. and yet you made the very same demand for proof to this poster who ALSO never claimed they had proof:
“Natural selection could not have “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction.
“Interesting claim. Can you prove it?”
see how what goes around comes around?
I never made a claim and admitted I couldn't prove the claim I never made.
That means I shouldn't ask (demand seems stronger than my actual words) for proof for such a sweeping claim?
The foundation of my argument is from biology. Simply because you dislike it does not nullify its accuracy.
In animals, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell
Parthenogenesis has NEVER occurred in mammalian life without scientific interference, which is NOT evolution.
Some insects and reptilians can do so but not mammals, not in the wild.
[[Parthenogenesis has NEVER occurred in mammalian life without scientific interference, which is NOT evolution.]]
Correct- it is infact intelligent design- whenever they ‘refute’ ID’s claims for things such as irreducible complexity, they concoct a wild scheme in which, under precise conditions, and certain circumstances that frankly aren’t natural, give the result they are looking for- in other-words- under an intelligently designed process, ‘nature could have done it’ ‘all by herself’ lol
Miller’s (I think it was Miller- been awhile since i looked into it again) ‘refutation’ of Behe’s irreducible complexity was so full of intelligently designed processes and precise conditions and supernatural events that one would have to assume nature was omnipotent and an intelligent designer- I read through his ‘refutation’- and he described steps that included supernatural events supposedly worked by nature under precise conditions to describe how blood clotting ‘could have ‘evolved naturally’ -
Eutherian mammals are pretty far removed...one could say evolved...from the earliest mammals. The advantages of sexual reproduction could account for the loss of the ability to reproduce asexually.
Interesting. You have a problem with mere mortals evolving from a beginning, yet you don't even stop to wonder how a god could possibly come to be.
Really, now? Don’t you read your own stuff?
You said, “Every mammal, insect, avain, amphibian, and aquatic life form relies upon two distinct sexes to survive.”
But now you say, “Some insects and reptilians can do so [rely on sexless reproduction].”
You finish off with, “The foundation of my argument is from biology. Simply because you dislike it does not nullify its accuracy.”
No, I dislike it because it is false, as you eventually admitted.
I said insects. There are a few, but it is not universal so stop trying to make something out of nothing. ALL insects procreate sexually it is only in extremis when they do so asexually.
Your argument, or the lack thereof, is pedestrian.
You deny saying this, I gather...
“Every mammal, insect, avain, amphibian, and aquatic life form relies upon two distinct sexes to survive.”
So I’m late to the thread - but would like to point out that 1st) the author is not denying scientific FACT. He is arguing against Evolutionary THEORY.
The great thing about science is the abundance of theories to explain the world. Some make sense, some don’t but are backed by facts, some are proven by facts, some are disproven by facts.
Evolution is still a scientific THEORY. There are very, very few scientific LAWS. The one fact that is cited in the article is that the “Queen of evolutionary problems” is acknowledged” by proponates of the Evolutionary Theory as an open issue. As such they have no facts to explain how their theory works in that regard.
The FACT is that the theory remains a theory, because it cannot explain everything. As such it is not FACT, but THEORY. And THEORIES are to be argued ad infinitum.... now THAT is science. Hypothesis, proposal, experimentation (very much lacking in evolutionary theory), results, conclusion.
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.