Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design evidence # 177: male & female
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 101 (34629)
03-18-2003 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Admin
03-18-2003 10:13 AM


Recap
Chavalon (post #6) and lpetrich (post #15) provided substantive replies to sonnikke's OP. Neither post garnered any response. The thread side-tracked subsequently into a discussion of the definition of "animal" and several biblical verses. Sonnikke has re-issued the initial challenge - which has at least been addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Admin, posted 03-18-2003 10:13 AM Admin has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 101 (34630)
03-18-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by DanskerMan
03-18-2003 9:23 AM


sonnikke, not expecting a response, writes:
According to the Creation model God created male and female (humans & animals) and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Is that what we observe? yes.
According to Creation there were two sexes created, is that what we observe? yes.
According to Creation male and female were made to compliment each other and be attracted to each other, is that what we observe? yes.
Unfortunately for your "goddidit" assertion, the actual observations of the natural world contradict your simplistic "two sexes created He" model. Setting aside the facts that all prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes are asexual clones, and the vast number of plants that reproduce asexually, there are huge numbers of metazoans that are also clonal. From ostracods to corals to numerous insect species the examples of single-sex reproduction are myriad. Even in higher organisms examples abound: the entire greenfish family (Aspidochirotidae), naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber), whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus spp.), several geckos (such as Christinus marmoratus, Lepidodactylus lugubris, Hemidactylus garnotti, etc) and so on. Moreover, there are examples of asexual insects, for instance, that are parthenogenetic (asexual) due to the action of parasites. Wolbachia and the wasp Asobara tabida spring to mind. Wolbachia usurps your deity's "two sex" scenario by forcing its host to produce only females.
"Goddidit" is such a simple explanation. Too bad it doesn't match reality.
(edited to fix formatting)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DanskerMan, posted 03-18-2003 9:23 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by DanskerMan, posted 03-19-2003 12:36 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 98 of 101 (34657)
03-19-2003 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by DanskerMan
03-19-2003 12:36 AM


Huh? Well, in case you missed it in the post to which you just responded, I gave you a list of vertebrates that have asexual reproduction. Feel free to look any of them up. You can probably simply type their latin names into google and come up with more information than you ever wanted. Here's the list again (and it doesn't represent all of them - there's a Rana spp that I couldn't remember off-hand, several salamanders, etc).
Quetzal again, for the reading impaired, writes:
the entire greenfish family (Aspidochirotidae), naked mole rats (Heterocephalus glaber), whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus spp.), several geckos (such as Christinus marmoratus, Lepidodactylus lugubris, Hemidactylus garnotti, etc)
As for multiple sexes - most people would consider parthenogenetic organisms or hermaphrodites a "third sex". Beyond that - why do you think this must be some kind of problem? An a posteriori observation that most of the animals familiar to Bronze Age pastoralists have two sexes doesn't prove the existence of God. Or much of anything else, for that matter. Especially when modern science shows that there are tons of organisms that have only one sex. Which, at the bare minimum, shows that taking the bible literally is a mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DanskerMan, posted 03-19-2003 12:36 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