[POLL] creationist / evolutionist?

[AteistangBanal]

Life finds a way.

In a complex system such as life, any little genotypic change which gives an organism a distinct advantage will be "exploited". It is therefore a good strategy to have as much diversity in your progenies as possible. It is fortunate that replication anomalies like mutation and cross-over can occur. Otherwise, what we have is a species of organism that cannot improve upon itself; any change in its environment may be fatal.

Sexual reproduction multiplies the potential of these replication anomalies to create diversity since it involves the mixing of genes from two individuals. Asexual reproduction on the other hand involves the genes of only one individual. The advantage of the former is obvious: the more diverse the progenies are, the more likely a better solution to the problem space of life will be found.

It is conceivable of course for life not to have stumbled upon sexual reproduction at all and thus failed to reap its benefits. It is also conceivable for life to have evolved a manner of sexual reproduction wherein 3 partners are involved instead of just 2, thus assuring more diversity. This line of thought I leave to science fiction.

[Kichigai]

See, if we evolved from the same genetic pool, such diversity would have never occured. Every single celled organism would have the same set of genes, reproduce asexually, and take over the whole damn world. Yes, mutations may occur, genes may change, but i can't still see the point why the heck we should evolve sexual reproduction! on the cellular level, its only two distinct cells carrying different genetic make-ups combining and dividing. why can't we do it asexually?

regarding any distinct advantage being "exploited" As far as I can see, no distinct advantage exists in sexual reproduction! Bacteria could reproduce at a tremendous rate, amoeba and paramecia too. even complex organisms such as plants reproduce asexually, and still maintain diversity. Why would creatures spend an enormous amount of energy just to do it when that energy could be used further to develop what their goal is - reproduce to let their species live?

And if Sexual reproduction really is advantageous, why haven't all organisms (ok, maybe not all- can't imagine a tree doin it) developed it? we came from the common stock MILLIONS of years ago right? thats a long enough time for the lesser species to evolve into something better.

On a side note: I'm not against sexual reproduction, mind you

[AteistangBanal]

I can see why it is so much easier to use a computer and post to PinoyExchange than to understand biology.

Kichigai, this may be of help: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117515

The answers are presented there in a manner lot simpler perhaps than I can manage.

[the antagonist]

nice link AteistangBanal. tho its only an encyclopedia, it'll do clear up things to our felllows here. even to me. we're a little off-topic tho. maybe this argument, the "why-not-asexual" argument deserves a new thread(more over some INC vs RomCat thread). i wish we could keep on posting - to know/learn more.

[Kichigai]

Originally posted by AteistangBanal
I can see why it is so much easier to use a computer and post to PinoyExchange than to understand biology.

And now I also can see how people who get cornered in message boards respond

Kichigai, this may be of help: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117515

The answers are presented there in a manner lot simpler perhaps than I can manage.

Whoa! thanks for pointing that out! now i can strike your name from my "intelligent posters" list and place it on "plagerist posters list". And i thought your previous post was YOUR idea! when you type(or copy-paste) something that didn't originate from you, please credit the source.


Sarcasm aside, even though you think you're more intelligent than me (which i think is a big yes- i'm not intelligent anyway) you have not addressed the issue that i drew your attention to. You have not yet explained to me why we need sex (read: copulation) in order to reproduce progenies which could survive a sudden change in its environment. I think the logic eludes you: the simplest and most functional method should have sufficed. In order for you to better visualize my point, why are our sperm cells contained in a certain biological goo which we call semen and required to be ejaculated into the vagina of a mate and then meet its partner cell? If you would only ponder of the implications contained in that complex process. Why did we have to develop that function when simpler approaces could have been made? we could have had say, a vessel containing our genetic makeup and get introduced to another ala-virii. We could have had the same result- a genetically different progeny. If only you have placed more of your brain, you would have realized that this is not as simple as posting to a message board system such as PeX.

And would you please drop that Holier(or Smarter)-than-thou attitude of yours? just gets into my nerves.

Peace.

Antagonist: good idea! I would really appreciate it if you could create it and i'll be posting on it just after our Thesis submission (which would be tomorrow).

Now have... to.... finish.......... thesis .................. docu.................

[AteistangBanal]

Kimchigai: get a better education!

I now realize that Kichigai has been misusing the term "sexual reproduction". He thinks it refers primarily to the method of reproduction that involves copulation. I hope the link I provided has enlightened him. His question about copulation is: "Why did we have to develop that function when simpler approaces (sic ) could have been made?" As I said before, I find that line of speculation best left to science fiction writers.

What I have posted before with regards to sexual reproduction can be found in any high school biology textbook, I think. I presumed the information to be so basic that mentioning a source would be superfluous. After all, we don't have to keep citing Darwin whenever we talk about evolution. (BTW, I too found the similarity between my explanation of sexual reproduction and that of Encyclopedia Britannica to be uncanny. Napagbintangan tuloy akong "plagerist" (sic ))

I saw it fit to reply to a question on reproduction because this poll concerns a choice between evolution and creation. I thought it would be best for everyone to make an informed decision, hence any information about evolution or creation would be relevant. An absence of response to how evolution can account for two different sexes may be construed as favoring the notion that man and woman were created.

Whenever people choose to discuss a topic as serious as “evolution vs. creation”, they better come armed with more than a high school diploma or a bible. As for my attitude: deal with it…or don’t

[Ark]

But what could be your reasons for liking and not liking an idea? Sometimes in our life, there are alots of truth that we find hard to accept, but we were forced to because of overwhelming evidence. Why it should be a matter of "liking the idea"? Isn't it suppose to be base on "evidences and arguments supporting the idea"?

Not all people need (or better yet, want) proofs to believe in something

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that theories are not the ultimate truths like the laws in science. Laws can not be proven false unlike theories. Theories are only accepted as true until it is proven otherwise. It may be based on factual evidences but it does not mean theories are really true. Just like some problems in math where you proved it's not this thing#1 but can't also tell if it's that thing#2.

Naging Korean food na si Kichigai! hehe... Tapusin mo na thesis docu niyo!

[Krelian]

Originally posted by chelsea
God created man directly. THe Creation story is not something created "in some pope's mind", it was not created by some Elohists to present to King Solomon--it was written by Moses the way God's Holy Spirit inspired him to.

Then what could be the proof that God does really exists, and Moses and Solomon did actually existed and God's Holy Spirit told them that what has happened?

Originally posted by chelsea
New discoveries, new archeological digs, prove that the places that the bible talks about exists. Ancient chinese characters 5,000 years old talk about a garden, a serpent, a man and a woman. The chinese symbol for justification is composed of a hand about to slaughter a lamb (which points to Jesus). Scientists believe that all humanity can be linked to one woman from Africa--(Eve?) Most ancient cultures talk about a Great Flood (Noah's ark).

Well I can write a story that humans were created by aliens that migrated here 4000 years ago using genetic engineering. Suppose 5000 years from now, Manila has become an old barren place where no one lives. Then archeologist during that time saw my work. Will that make my work a historical fact?

Originally posted by chelsea
I have to remember the name of this certain anthropologist, but he discovered that some prehistoric skulls that seemed apelike, were not really so. He discovered that the jaw bone was forced out of its socket to make it more apelike, and now his life is endangered and he is getting death threats.

You believe in him? Can you or him present any evidence of this claim?

[sips coffee]

[micketymoc]

Originally posted by Ark Not all people need (or better yet, want) proofs to believe in something

True. But speaking for the case of intellectual honesty, one might as well accept evolution if one accepts the fruit of the theory i.e. genetics, medicine, purebred dogs, etc. I imagine a creationist stuffing himself with corn on the cob denying evolution; while the food he eats itself is a product of evolution (corn as we know it today cannot reproduce on its own; millennia of artificial selection made it into the corn-on-the-cob we know today).

There's a word for not needing proof to believe in something. No, it's not faith - it's superstition. And it's not valid at all - lest you can admit to the Invisible Pink Unicorn being true. "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

Originally posted by Ark Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that theories are not the ultimate truths like the laws in science. Laws can not be proven false unlike theories. Theories are only accepted as true until it is proven otherwise. It may be based on factual evidences but it does not mean theories are really true. Just like some problems in math where you proved it's not this thing#1 but can't also tell if it's that thing#2.

Laws and theories are not part of a graded line, as your post implies. A theory isn't a law that hasn't been proved satisfactorily. Read my post above for more details. Or, better yet, read this article. Among other things, it quotes Stephen J. Gould thus:

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

The scientific idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory. Einstein's explanation of relativity is also a theory. The idea that you catch disease by getting infected by germs is also a theory. Nothing we can say or do will make them laws. Their very structure, as a framework of laws and scientific ideas, render them theories, yet still correct in every sense.

Theories better than laws? So that makes creationism just as valid as evolution? It's like saying that geocentrism is equally valid. Or saying that demons cause all disease. Come off it, man.

[Kichigai]

Originally posted by AteistangBanal
Kimchigai: get a better education!

Whenever people choose to discuss a topic as serious as “evolution vs. creation? they better come armed with more than a high school diploma or a bible. As for my attitude: deal with it…or don’t

Yup I'll deal with it alright. But not now. You wouldn't like me when i'm in a bad mood.

And i have nothing against us discussing here too. it was just a good idea to make a separate thread for it. Actually, my vote hangs on how the people here would explain to me that question

[dexterFrancis]

...just a thought...perhaps i'm wrong...

the debate about sexual reproduction is something that intrigued me...a thought i never pondered before. it may sound as if it is an issue not related to evolution vs. creation. but to me it is.

kichigai had presented a puzzle which is worth discussing.
he is suggesting that sexual reproduction is a design (non-accidental that is) rather than JUST a mechanism for survival that life forms developed through time. kichigai is implying that it was intended and i was anticipating a design-purpose argument from him. there are numerous manner of reproduction that could have evolved. and of all those combinations, why man-woman sexual interaction prevailed (for human beings of course). was it a result of evolution or was it pre-ordained? this is the question kichigai wants us to answer (perhaps). was it because of a divine purpose?

for me, evolution is the manner in which the creator brought us into being. it has to be evolution.

The most basic thing to remember about the belief in God is FAITH. FAITH can not be based on KNOWN truths but only on 'things' which are mysterious and not proven. otherwise, we won't call it faith. we will call it science. if EVERYTHING just popped out out of nowhere (because probably GOD wanted it that way), then a proof for the existence of God has been presented to us DIRECTLY. this is true since we will associate the "INSTANTAENOUS POPPING" of things to a being that is capable of doing it. Since there is already a proof for God's existence, we won't need FAITH because the existence of God is already a proven fact, a science. and if there's no faith, how can God test our devotion?

Evolution, for me, is a design to hide God.

[M9dhatter]

an interesting point dexterFrancis...

lets say you're right and a creator guided us into being sexual beings (a term that i will use to differentiate from non Asexual ones). still, why?

on the other hand, i have this: we evolved continuously through the ages and then there came a time when something went drastically wrong where primitive creatures had to choose between sexual and asexual reproduction. by the time we humans get to understand ourselves, we can't do anything about being sexual.

'tis quite true that this is an interesting thread. it tickles my mind (or whats left of it). some people think that this is quite a serious topic. i disagree. to me, this is like choosing between coke and pepsi. both of which can be the true answers to the mystery of the universe

[caporegime]

IMHO as organisms begin to get more complex (development ensures survival in a harsh, complex world hence, evolution), they establish a society which also evolves with a relative complexity, in which the roles of the individual organisms get diversified.

Species of complex social organisms have greater chances of survival through sexual reproduction, through selection of mates with "healthy" traits, as already discussed and on the individual level, basically having someone to hunt and provide for the food while the other conceives or nurtures the offspring.

Unless one will consider the amount of mass we have evolved to as complex beings, maybe some will not get my point as to why I think sexual reproduction became the "standard". Gravity or mass among other factors are also involved IMHO, as the more complex you become, the heavier you get esp. when conceiving, the more you consume, mobility is affected as well as the ability to gather food or do other tasks. I don't think one will last long conceiving an offspring, at the same time hunting for food and protecting itself from predators, & etc. etc. all by itself. And I don't think the species will last long or progress as fast as we have doing just that. Tasks were equalized between the two, and so came forth a man and a woman that bond, put up with and help each other, mainly for domestic purposes. The masculine gender developed larger muscles for hunting but sometimes it hunted not only food and so the woman homemaker must never turn complacent.

The biological make up of our own bodies is somewhat similar, different organs with different tasks made up of different cells and systematically bound together for their own mutual benefit. Since when we ate merely to "fill our tummies"?

I do believe that a paticular need of an organism also influences it's evolution just as a need brings about invention. See how our intellectual ability has developed through evolution and we have gained much knowledge and abilities that have exponentially reached the point that we can now evolve ourselves through gene manipulation, all for the purpose of our need to survive.

Now that we're on top of the food chain here on Earth... who or what are we up against? (me looking up the stars..)

Grinning smileys omitted.

[Kichigai]

Let me style this to a semi-formal debate:

A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by facts and certain assumptions. And when somebidy questions you about its most basic assumption and you would only answer "I find that line of speculation best left to science fiction writers", Its like saying "I really don't know much about the topic so i'm trying to avoid arguments that may destroy my resolve and I'll just try to make them think I'm smart"

See, The basic assumption in evolution (if I'm not mistaken) is that we evolve to adapt to our environment. We evolved reproduction because we need it. Nature gave a "simple" (which is actually VERY complex) way for single celled animals to reproduce (or single celled animals evolved a simple way to reproduce). On the basis that we, ourselves evolved from reproducing single celled organisms, we could have had a very functional and very efficient way of reproduction, but as you have presented (or the Encyclopaedia Britannica) this would have a tragic, albeit fatal effect. So we need to develop something that would adapt to that, and here we are, with the wonders of sexual reproduction.

Now the argument I presented (which you have not addressed except for delegating the task to science fiction writers) would be working on what has been laid. We already have a functional and effective way to reproduce, which was handed by our ancestors, the single celled organism. Logically, we could have evolved something that would work around with that limitation, but not radically disregarding what we currently have (Evolution gave a slow but functional, if ONLY the missing links were FOUND, transition from single celled organisms to complex organisms).

But is that what happened? No. For some unknown reason, we have developed copulation. And I, pardon the interruption, have not

Originally posted by AteistangBanal
been misusing the term "sexual reproduction". He thinks it refers primarily to the method of reproduction that involves copulation

simply because the question itself limits the arguments to humans. I quote (italics mine):

Originally posted by Kichigai
If we evolved, why did we evolve sexual reproduction?

pray, tell me, what other natural form of sexual reproduction exists for humans?

Attention to detail, my friend, attention to detail.

And since you have not been giving me any intelligible response, I would not be posting anymore replies to your posts except when I think that you're intelligible enough, or when you're lambasting somebody (myself included).

With that, I rest my case.

----------------------------------------------

One pice of advice AteistangBanal:. when you get pissed, don't mutilate other people's names unless it would really be funny. changing my Japanese handler and placing Korean words to it just makes you seem pathetic. I suggest going to www.myhumorsucks.com and try downloading a new version, since it seems to me that yours have either expired or you have just have not been exposed to an environment that would need one. Evolve one already buddy!

And, even though our curriculum do not have any biology subject (sadly) my high school diploma (which has inadvertently gone missing ) has credited me with more than your normal dose of biology subjects. Seeing that those who have either lower intelligence than you do and those who have higher could see my point, I think that would be enough.

And last, I would like to thank dexterFrancis for again anticipating my arguments. Promil Kid ka talaga. Actually, I have been reserving that until nobody could explain to me the question I posted 2 days ago.

More to come. Prior engagements (not including the fact that my mom keeps on reminding me of the time) beckons me to leave my computer to my 2 cute dogs again.

[Lucca Yamazaki]

Originally posted by Krelian
Well I can write a story that humans were created by aliens that migrated here 4000 years ago using genetic engineering. Suppose 5000 years from now, Manila has become an old barren place where no one lives. Then archeologist during that time saw my work. Will that make my work a historical fact?
[sips coffee]

Hey, you just gave me an idea!
Talk about posthumous notoriety, hehehehe.......

[kimmmy]

Originally posted by M9dhatter
on the other hand, i have this: we evolved continuously through the ages and then there came a time when something went drastically wrong where primitive creatures had to choose between sexual and asexual reproduction. by the time we humans get to understand ourselves, we can't do anything about being sexual.

Still the question remains- what prompted us to do that? why didn't it prompt the 'other' primitive creatures to do the same?

[Kichigai]

Originally posted by M9dhatter
on the other hand, i have this: we evolved continuously through the ages and then there came a time when something went drastically wrong where primitive creatures had to choose between sexual and asexual reproduction. by the time we humans get to understand ourselves, we can't do anything about being sexual.

Still the question remains- what prompted us to do that? why didn't it prompt the 'other' primitive creatures to do the same?

[Kichigai]

It just happens na naka-cache pala siya dito sa pcng gamit ko. di ko napansin nung fist time. SORRY!!!!

[Kichigai]

It just happens na naka-cache pala siya dito sa pcng gamit ko. di ko napansin nung fist time. SORRY!!!!

[micketymoc]

Whatever suggests that to be sexual or asexual is a choice made by species?

Science supposes that sexual reproduction evolved about 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago (Bernstein H et al., Am Nat 1981). So why sex in the first place?

Sex produces greater variations on the offspring's genotypes; since you don't simply carbon-copy your own DNA into your kids, you get greater variety (your kid's DNA is a combination of yours and your sex partner's DNA).

Why variety? Well, species survival is often seen as kind of a war of escalation - all species' survival depends on one's adaptation to the environment. And since the environment can change so fast, species that reproduce sexually, and thus also can adapt faster than asexual creatures, will last longer in that environment.

Sex=diversity. Diversity=survival.

I may sound like a fuddy-duddy, but I think if we're debating science subjects, it might be a good idea to read up more on science texts as well. For a great explanation on evolution, you can check out Talk Origins.

M9dhatter, I violently (in a metaphorical sort of way) disagree with what you said: "this is like choosing between coke and pepsi. both of which can be the true answers to the mystery of the universe." Only one can be the true answer, if you mean by true the testable, falsifiable, quantifiable. (all the rest is simply wishful thinking.) Let me ask you this - what is more true, the African tribal belief that the Moon is an orb a few miles out, no larger than a city, or current understanding of the moon as a heavenly body as large as the Pacific Ocean and orbiting millions of miles out?

If what you say is valid, then both must be true. "It's all relative." Sure. But I think the train of thought that actually got a man on the moon (the scientific thought) actually is more valid than the train of thought that's never even contemplated its real size.