|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Design evidence # 177: male & female | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:26-27) That quote from the bible is exactly what we see in our world, man who has dominion over the animals, and male and female sex (humans and animals). How it is believed that ToE could ever produce male and female and so perfectly and consistently, is a question I would like answered. p.s. what happened to my other topic "taste buds" ?? it disappeared...I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Who exactly is the "us" in this passage? and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. What would man want with most creatures on this earth apart from the odd edible ones? Never understood that line. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.So is God male/female/shemale? What does a God eat? Does God poo? Really ... I'm being serious here. That quote from the bible is exactly what we see in our world, man who has dominion over the animals, and male and female sex (humans and animals). That quote is a man-made explanation for what we see, not the reason for what we see. And I'd like to see you practice your dominion over a pack of lions - they'd soon show you where you fit on the food chain. How it is believed that ToE could ever produce male and female and so perfectly and consistently, is a question I would like answered.Define perfection. Explain the Seahorse. Consistency? As in the similarity between reproductive mechanisms of humans to other primates, and all other mammals? It's questions like these that brought about the ToE in the first place. You're on the right track sonnike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: S: Sorry, it was rejection of God that brought about ToE...you're on the wrong track. Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
S: The "us" is the Trinity: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Does the Bible not state all 3 are God, and God is one. Schizophrenia? S: It's just saying that we are NOT animals.No, it says humans have dominion over all other creatures. Differentiation, and dominion are not the same. S: Read the bible.I have. I would like your take on this point. S: Except I CAN dominate them with means they don't have.Such as...? S: eg. man and woman, perfect fit in sex, designed for each other, designed to be together.I'm not an expert on seahorses. And I can just as easily say 'evolved to fit, evolved to work'. What makes your argument stronger? Male seahorses give birth, not the female. It was a point against consistency. S: Sorry, it was rejection of God that brought about ToE...you're on the wrong track.ToE was a conclusion made by the study of fact. You know, there are more Christian evolutionists than atheist evos? Personally, I never rejected the Bible as I never got sucked in by it in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
First, please answer my original question and explain in detail how evolution could have produced male and female.
Regards,S ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chavalon Inactive Member |
quote: In bacteria, sex (sharing of DNA) and reproduction are not linked. In eukaryotes, they are, nuclear DNA being spliced and recombined at the same time as it is passed on to the next generation. Prokaryotes have no gender. Many eukaryotes do. All eukaryotic cells have DNA in their mitochondria as well as their nucleus. Mitochondria bud like bacteria in a cycle not necessarily in step with the cell’s own life cycle. Any mitochondria DNA in a gamete should have a 100% chance of continued propagation. In a few species, such as sea lettuce, both sperm and eggs have mitochondria. After they fuse, there is a fight to the death, always won decisively by the mitochondria of one parent. All of the rest of the cellular machinery remains duplicated, including nuclei. This fight is very energetically expensive for the cell, but the mitochondria - genetically unrelated to the nuclear DNA - are playing their own game, competing for a fixed resource, the stakes being life or death. Almost all the mitochondria in the sperm of all other species are ejected deliberately before fertilisation. Those that make it into the zygote are promptly destroyed. [just so story] Some early eukaryotes mutated to destroy non-self mitochondria effectively. This gene spread as long as it was rare. It did not enjoy meeting copies of itself. Other early eukaryotes mutated to eject their mitochondria. This gene avoided conflict and waste in fusions with ordinary cells, and so spread as long as it was rare. Meeting copies of itself led to fiasco, but if it met the first mutant, they got on perfectly. Soon they would work only with one another. The first mutation led to females, the second to males. Thus the fact that sex and reproduction are linked in eukaryotes, and that eukaryotes have two unrelated DNA lineages led naturally to gender.[ /just so story] This is taken from 'Mendel's Demon' by Mark Ridley (Published by Phoenix in 2001). Other theories about gender are based on ideas about resistance to parasitism. ------------------Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24 v 25
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What makes you think ToE came from rejection of god? ToE came about via observations made by naturalists ... orrather their attempts to explain their observations. ToE nay require the rejection of a literal interpretation ofthe bible, but it does not require a rejection of the concept of god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
All humans are animals, therefore, all animals are human.
Sonnike said so, therefore, it is true!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: First of all....I didn't say that..I said humans are NOT animals... 2ndly, ...are you going to keep saying that to everything I write forever and ever?? ------------------"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm"
--Which one? -------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AstroMike Inactive Member |
quote: Are you not aware that the Bible uses a different definition of animal than biologists use? ------------------"The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly." -Proverbs 15:14 (NIV)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DanskerMan Inactive Member |
quote: I don't remember the name of it, but it was around dec. 20th or so..if you go to your index, you should see a 'blank' topic which has your last message number listed but no topic... Regards,S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
quote: Probably the "missing topic" is one that got moved to a different forum. One of the topics I have moved is the "Design evidence #231...". Unfortunately, such moves causes "missing topics" to appear in the index. It's going to happen again, because I'm also moving this topic to the "Intelligent Design" forum. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
The bug which causes moved topics to be improperly represented in various indices will be fixed with an upcoming release of software, probably within a couple weeks.
------------------ --EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
sonnikke:
How it is believed that ToE could ever produce male and female and so perfectly and consistently, is a question I would like answered. The oldest organisms multiplied by dividing, as one-celled organisms continue to do. However, they also exchange genetic material; some early protist invented conjugation -- genome-scale genetic-material exchange. Another invention of an early protist was a cell cycle that goes like this: diploid phase - meiosis - haploid phase - cell fusion - diploid phase This would be followed by a mechanism to suppress inbreeding: cells can only fuse with cells that have a different "mating type"; some protists thus have several sexes, though they outwardly look alike ("isogamy"). The next question is the origin of differences between the sexes. A multicellular organism may reproduce by distributing haploid cells (gametes), which fuse with each other and start new diploid-phase organisms. But to have a good start, the gametes ought to be big and full of food. This would make them slow, but an ingenious workaround was invented more than once: only one sex of gamete becomes big; the other sex stays small and easily mobile. Thus are born egg and sperm cells. These were initially released into the environment, as algae and primitive land plants and many aquatic animals continue to do ("external fertilization"). But living on land has the hazard of drying out, so land plants and several groups of land animals have invented internal fertilization -- a pollen grain grows a tube that seeks out the egg cells -- the male inserts his sperm cells into the female, where they seek out her egg cells. S: Sorry, it was rejection of God that brought about ToE...you're on the wrong track. That assertion is nothing more than the excrement of the male bovine. I've yet to see ANY evidence for it. (edited to change a bit of wording) [This message has been edited by lpetrich, 01-26-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024