I wonder if there is much interest in the amazing variety of different methods of reproduction that evolved over the billions of years there has been life on earth.
Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed but simply another example of "just barely good enough" that seems the hallmark of living organisms throughout history.
For millions if not billions of years the only form of reproduction was either clonal splitting or cellular combination followed by division.
The former had the serious problem that simple duplication provided no variations and so the organisms were subject to total population extermination when conditions changed.
The latter provided the first introduction of variation where traits from one organism could get shared with a different organism.
When we move to the various modern methods of reproduction what is found is that most systems are extremely inefficient and failure to reproduce is the norm rather than success. Most such systems rely on large scale attempts to compensate for the high rate of failure. The tactics is common in both plant and animal species and this time of year is a particular nuisance. Plants produce pollen that is then dispersed randomly and may happen to fertilize another plant of the same species. A similar example from the animal side of the family is common in fish where a female releases a vast amount of eggs into the water and males release vast quantities of sperm and again random dispersal may result in some of the eggs being fertilized.
Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule. The vast majority of species have neither males or females but rather are without sex; many species are both male & female; many have more than two genders and there are even species that change sex as needed or with age.
When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue.
It is not a cop out but rather a logical restriction. You presume to know what the designer's objective might be.
Of course it is a royal cop out. I really don't care what the designers objective might be since there is no reason to even suppose some designer. What we can base conclusions on is the evidence itself.
Reproduction is what it is. You can't say that there is no designer because reproduction doesn't look like you think it should. Furthermore, you will find it difficult to argue that the observed aggregate of reproductive methods is anything but successful.
I don't find that hard to argue at all. I simply look at the evidence. Almost every species that ever existed went extinct. Almost all potential reproductive events fails. In a vast number of actual reproductive attempts that result in a new living creature the critter dies before it can reproduce. The certainly can be described as unsuccessful.
Finding out what doesn't work is very nearly as important as finding out what does work. Some things work for a while and then they don't. Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective.
And there you go presuming to know some designers objective. As long as the Designers Objective cop out card is played then anything is possible.
Sorry but designers get graded on the results.
As long as the results show that if there was a designer then only as long as ID stands for Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inept Designer or Inefficient Designer is ID even vaguely possible.
Absolutely. And I even find support for that throughout the Bible.
What does the Bible say about the arrangement of the periodic table? Any adjustments recommended there?
Nice attempt to move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject.
Classic fail however.
And it takes no assumptions to conclude that a near 100% failure rate is reasonably described as a failure.
Unless you imagine for a moment what the world would look like if every potential reproductive event met with success.
Again, no imagination is needed. We can simply look at the evidence. Again though, that is simply another attempt by you to find a handy cop out, move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject. We have the evidence and we can draw conclusions based on the evidence.
If there was some designer she designed a system that could only succeed by being inept, inefficient, ignorant, ill thought out, and with all the characteristics of an unplanned system that is just barely good enough to get by.
We are assessing the performance of GOD. Don't you think that the arrangement of the periodic table is pertinent and also intimately related to the way that reproduction works?
As I said, classic fail.
We are discussing God only from the evidence in the variety and effectiveness of reproduction methods over time. The Periodic Table is a creation of man, not God nor is the Periodic Table related to the subject in any way.
And yet get by it does.
Here you sit on this wee speck, a mote upon a mote, casting aspersions. You should be smart enough to know that you don't know enough to decide how smart you are.
Yet another classic fail. We are not discussing how smart I am but rather the topic of the various reproduction methods over time. If you wish to imagine some designer then we can only judge that designer based on the evidence at hand.
This thread topic was proposed by me originally, and stolen by yourself and changed to make it a biological evolution thread on the varied ways the Lord reproduces His original Creation, whereas my topic was the sexuality of humans, and whether it was created or was by luck and chance evolution.
If this subject is different than what you proposed then I certainly stole nothing from you.
Perhaps the difference is that I seem able to write a coherent initial post.
This topic does have a theme, and the theme is neither your fantasies or rantings.
Please try to stay on topic. The God you market is irrelevant in Science forums.
I just take exception to the idea that we know what a properly designed universe would look like. I am fairly certain that I would strike out childhood cancer if I were GOD but I am also certain that if I were GOD then my perspective would be different.
As I said, simply a cop out. Once you introduce the "Designer might have other plans" gambit then any reasoned discussion ceases.
The reality is that we make judgements. Hopefully those judgements are based on evidence. There is evidence. That evidence can be used to make judgements.
Well, if you are arguing against a creation model, FIRST understand it. We don't argue that looking at the present state of the planet, is any indication of how it was made. We argue that God created a "very good" world, where there were no thorns or disease or malfunction.
Yes Mike, I am fully aware that you pile nonsense on top of nonsense but that is still just nonsense totally refuted by reality and even the slitest hint of honesty.
But it is still totally irrelevant to this topic and and simply yet another of your attempts to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts, misdirect attention and post your fantasies.
We are talking about how reproduction on earth supports or opposes the idea of a designed universe. The premise of jar's argument is that the haphazard shotgun approach of the various methods that exist is somehow evidence that the universe was not designed.
No, once again that is simply not true.
The variety of different methods of reproduction exist and there is evidence that all of those different methods of reproduction really do exist.
Those various processes can be observed and characterized.
The efficiency, effectiveness, reliability and success or failure rate of those methods can be established.
There is a process (The Theory of Evolution) that can explain both the variety of processes as well as why they are as inefficient, unreliable and ineffective as they are.
What is not in evidence and so has no merit is any designer.
Until the designer is actually placed in evidence there is simply no worth or value or reason to try to insert the imaginary designer.
I just don't see how it addressees the question of design which is, at it's heart, a question of origin.
And how it addresses the question of design has been repeatedly answered.
Now it you wish to play the "We can't know the objectives of the designer" cop out game then the answer is "In that case, present the designer and we can ask about that issue". However, until such time as the designer is presented to be questioned the "We can't know the objectives of the designer" cop out is simply mental masturbation and of no worthy consideration or discussion.