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.
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.