Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 177: male & female
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 101 (29765)
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 01-21-2003 11:48 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 6:23 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 15 by lpetrich, posted 01-25-2003 4:44 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 01-26-2003 11:46 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 01-26-2003 11:55 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 101 (29773)
01-21-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 10:57 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 12:19 PM David unfamous has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 101 (29776)
01-21-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by David unfamous
01-21-2003 11:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Who exactly is the "us" in this passage?
S: The "us" is the Trinity: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
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.
S: It's just saying that we are NOT animals.
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.
S: Read the bible.
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.
S: Except I CAN dominate them with means they don't have.
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.
S: eg. man and woman, perfect fit in sex, designed for each other, designed to be together.
I'm not an expert on seahorses.
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.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 01-21-2003 11:48 AM David unfamous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by David unfamous, posted 01-21-2003 12:50 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 01-22-2003 4:05 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 101 (29782)
01-21-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 12:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 12:19 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 2:13 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 101 (29789)
01-21-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by David unfamous
01-21-2003 12:50 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by David unfamous, posted 01-21-2003 12:50 PM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chavalon, posted 01-21-2003 7:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 101 (29809)
01-21-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 2:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
First, please answer my original question and explain in detail how evolution could have produced male and female.
Regards,
S

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 2:13 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 7 of 101 (29845)
01-22-2003 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 12:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
S: Sorry, it was rejection of God that brought about ToE...you're on the wrong track.

What makes you think ToE came from rejection of god?
ToE came about via observations made by naturalists ... or
rather their attempts to explain their observations.
ToE nay require the rejection of a literal interpretation of
the bible, but it does not require a rejection of the
concept of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 12:19 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 8 of 101 (29882)
01-22-2003 10:33 AM


All humans are animals, therefore, all animals are human.
Sonnike said so, therefore, it is true!

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DanskerMan, posted 01-22-2003 5:01 PM derwood has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 101 (29924)
01-22-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by derwood
01-22-2003 10:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
All humans are animals, therefore, all animals are human.
Sonnike said so, therefore, it is true!

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by derwood, posted 01-22-2003 10:33 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AstroMike, posted 01-22-2003 6:55 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 18 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 4:14 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 32 by derwood, posted 01-31-2003 12:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 101 (29935)
01-22-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


"I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm"
--Which one?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 10:57 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by DanskerMan, posted 01-22-2003 11:57 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
AstroMike
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 101 (29945)
01-22-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DanskerMan
01-22-2003 5:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
All humans are animals, therefore, all animals are human.
Sonnike said so, therefore, it is true!

First of all....I didn't say that..I said humans are NOT animals...

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DanskerMan, posted 01-22-2003 5:01 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 101 (29970)
01-22-2003 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
01-22-2003 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm"
--Which one?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 6:23 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-25-2003 2:32 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 13 of 101 (30178)
01-25-2003 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by DanskerMan
01-22-2003 11:57 PM


quote:
..if you go to your index, you should see a 'blank' topic which has your last message number listed but no topic...
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}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DanskerMan, posted 01-22-2003 11:57 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 01-25-2003 3:22 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 101 (30185)
01-25-2003 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Adminnemooseus
01-25-2003 2:32 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-25-2003 2:32 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 101 (30192)
01-25-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DanskerMan
01-21-2003 10:57 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DanskerMan, posted 01-21-2003 10:57 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024