Explain this: Atheists claim that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. I have a slight problem with this. How do you explain the fact that much of the life on this planet...

Mr Bombastic

Atheists claim that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. I have a slight problem with this. How do you explain the fact that much of the life on this planet has two sexes? If evolution is correct (haha) then they must have evolved over millions of years. In order for this to happen, they must retain the ability to reproduce asexually while developing the ability to reproduce sexually. Then they would have to make the switch and permanently lose the ability to reproduce asexually. Does anyone really believe this BS? Seriously?

JW

Mr Bombastic wrote:

Atheists claim that all life evolved from a single... (show quote)

Your problem, Bomby, is your gross lack of knowledge. Look up the mating habits of the tiger salamander or the leopard gecko.

Read up on parthenogenesis. Here's a link to get you started. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VirginBirth.html

As I said, only a place to start but do look into the mating behaviors of the two I mentioned.

Mr Bombastic

JW wrote:

Your problem, Bomby, is your gross lack of knowledge. Look up the mating habits of the tiger salamander or the leopard gecko.

Read up on parthenogenesis. Here's a link to get you started. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VirginBirth.html

As I said, only a place to start but do look into the mating behaviors of the two I mentioned.

That doesn't address my question. According to Darwinian evolution, mutations are supposed to make changes that allow the fittest to survive. There is no survival value in a partially formed reproductive system. In order for life as we know it to happen, asexual critters would have had to develop a completely new method of procreation, while maintaining the ability to reproduce asexually.

wings Loc: Georgia

JW wrote:

Your problem, Bomby, is your gross lack of knowledge. Look up the mating habits of the tiger salamander or the leopard gecko.

Read up on parthenogenesis. Here's a link to get you started. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VirginBirth.html

As I said, only a place to start but do look into the mating behaviors of the two I mentioned.

JW,
First, evolution is not contrary to creationism. But lets look at the one celled Paramecium. Mainstream thought is that consciousness (awareness and feeling states) is produced by the brain. The Paramecium , which debunks that theory, has no brain, not even a ganglia, yet it is aware. It demonstrates this by it's ability to move away from perceived danger, escape from danger at a faster and faster rate as a result of experience, and do most of the things that more advanced organisms do for survival.
Where then do's this Paramecium get it's awareness (consciousness) if not from consciousness that is intrinsic to the entire Universe and everything in it.
Where then did this Universal consciousness originate if not from a creator?
And yes, evolution theory can still stand because we know that a series of mutations can lead to a new type of creature.
So it looks like we can have our cake and eat it too.

Mr Bombastic

wings wrote:

JW, br First, evolution is not contrary to creatio... (show quote)

You cannot point to one single lifeform that has 'evolved' into a new lifeform. Never happened. Never will. Everything produces after its own kind. Just as God intended. Darwinian evolution is a lie.

wings Loc: Georgia

Mr Bombastic wrote:

You cannot point to one single lifeform that has 'evolved' into a new lifeform. Never happened. Never will. Everything produces after its own kind. Just as God intended. Darwinian evolution is a lie.

Mr. Bomb, if you will notice, in my reply to your post, I clearly support Creationism. However, evolution is also a part of life. A very simple example would be a bacteria that could be k**led by antibiotics, evolving and adapting to its environment thereby becoming immune to the antibiotic. It becomes, at that point, a new variant of it's former self. This is not to say that humans evolved from a primordial soup that was struck by the electric charge of lightning . Evolution in my opinion is merely physical adaptation to changes in surrounding demands. Evolution certainly can not explain the origin of life.
Hope this gets me off your s#*t list.

JW

wings wrote:

JW, br First, evolution is not contrary to creatio... (show quote)

I don't disagree with any of your facts, only your conclusion that a universal consciousness exits as evidence of a Creator. You may be correct but it remains to be established as something more than a belief.

JW

Mr Bombastic wrote:

That doesn't address my question. According to Darwinian evolution, mutations are supposed to make changes that allow the fittest to survive. There is no survival value in a partially formed reproductive system. In order for life as we know it to happen, asexual critters would have had to develop a completely new method of procreation, while maintaining the ability to reproduce asexually.

Look into the mating habits of the two creatures I mentioned. You will find species that answer your question. They produce only female offspring but require a 'male' for reproduction. They provide examples of that intermediate method of procreation you seek.

JW

Mr Bombastic wrote:

You cannot point to one single lifeform that has 'evolved' into a new lifeform. Never happened. Never will. Everything produces after its own kind. Just as God intended. Darwinian evolution is a lie.

Many, including us, can be pointed to but you have to understand the fossil record to see it.

Mr Bombastic

wings wrote:

Mr. Bomb, if you will notice, in my reply to your ... (show quote)

Mostly correct. Bacteria do not evolve. They gain their immunity from certain antibiotics because a certain percentage of them lose the ability to ingest what k**led the others. It's not evolution. It's devolution. It's a loss, even though it helps them survive. At least that's what I remember from reading up on it. If you compared the DNA (do bacteria have DNA) RNA then of an immune bacteria and one that wasn't, they'd be the same. And you were never on my s**t list.

Mr Bombastic

JW wrote:

Many, including us, can be pointed to but you have to understand the fossil record to see it.

The fossil record is a joke. There are even atheist scientists who think so.

Hogback

Mr Bombastic wrote:

Atheists claim that all life evolved from a single... (show quote)

All life needs other life to eat. Where was the other life? Where did the first single-celled organism come from? How did the earth and space get here? The first life had to have somewhere to exist.How did the first sexes first evolve? They would have had to evolve in the close proximity of each other and the breeding must have worked perfect first time out of the box. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!

JW

Hogback wrote:

All life needs other life to eat. Where was the other life? Where did the first single-celled organism come from? How did the earth and space get here? The first life had to have somewhere to exist.How did the first sexes first evolve? They would have had to evolve in the close proximity of each other and the breeding must have worked perfect first time out of the box. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!

Or enough information to base anything on those questions...