Creation vs. Evolution

[redacted]

Forget that "humans descended from apes" stuff, it looks like we're descended from urchins!!!

Decoded Sea Urchin Genome Shows Surprising Relationship to Humans
If I eat uni, does that make me a cannibal? :11:

Looks like we are also related to the Oak tree - some of us perhaps more closely than others.

 

[Thalassamania]

Forget that "humans descended from apes" stuff, it looks like we're descended from urchins!!!

Decoded Sea Urchin Genome Shows Surprising Relationship to Humans
If I eat uni, does that make me a cannibal? :11:

Actually I don't find that suprising, we share a common ancestor with the echinoderms at a much closer point than we do with other "invertebrates." Invertebrate is another concept that should be discarded since there are multiple lines of descent that are "invertebrate."

 

[SeanQ]

Here's another question; statistically, what is the probability of a fully viable human female evolving concurrently to a fully viable human male? "Well it must have happened because ..." is not a scientific answer. And that's only once example of the insanity of your "science".

Seriously? Nil.

You're mistaken about the process of evolution again. Evolution occurs over generations, not during a single lifespan. Futhermore, gender is not a taxonomic distinction. The concept of an human "evolving" from one gender to another is makes me want to, in your words, ROFLMAO.

Asking "What is the probability of humans evolving such that the female transfers eggs to the male to be fertilized and born?" is a more reasonable question. Seahorses are an example of animals that evolved this ability. I don't know much detail about seahorse life cycles, so I'll let someone else expand upon that. As for the probability, I can't say for sure, but, given the exact, required conditions, sufficient time, and control over all other variables, I wouldn't be surprised if it occured.

Of course, at that point, they might not be classified as Homo sapien if they couldn't interbreed with "normal" people. So really, it's a trick question.

 

[H2Andy]

sean, he might be asking "how did sexual reproduction come about?" (which implies a male and a female ... and which, in his mind, leads to the assumption that the first "being" was male, which leads to the following question: if you need a female to reproduce, how did you end up with a female starting only with a male?)

if so, the question is a misunderstanding of how sexual reproduction (and thus differences between the sexes) evolved.

first, there were organisms that had both "male" and "female" organs (i'm simplifying here) and which could reproduce by themselves (i.e. asexual reproduction)

at one point, these organisms started producing EITHER male OR female offspring. remember, since the "parent" has both male and female DNA, it can give off either gender to the offspring.

the same is true of you today, Green my man. your DNA has plans for building either a male or a female. your offspring can be either.

it never occurred to you that it was odd that a male parent can have a female offspring, or that a female parent can have a male offspring?

because basically that's the gist of your question: how can a female come from a male

heck, ask any daughter what her dad's name is and you got the answer =)

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Seriously? Nil.

You're mistaken about the process of evolution again. Evolution occurs over generations, not during a single lifespan. Futhermore, gender is not a taxonomic distinction. The concept of an human "evolving" from one gender to another is makes me want to, in your words, ROFLMAO.

Asking "What is the probability of humans evolving such that the female transfers eggs to the male to be fertilized and born?" is a more reasonable question. Seahorses are an example of animals that evolved this ability. I don't know much detail about seahorse life cycles, so I'll let someone else expand upon that. As for the probability, I can't say for sure, but, given the exact, required conditions, sufficient time, and control over all other variables, I wouldn't be surprised if it occured.

Of course, at that point, they might not be classified as Homo sapien if they couldn't interbreed with "normal" people. So really, it's a trick question.

ROFLMG(reen)AO.

I understand the theory of evolution very well. I know that you believe great leaps occur over time and generations. But you've not seen it happen. Why not just answer the question I asked about human males and females rather than talk about seahorse reproduction?

Given the exact, required conditions, sufficient ime and control over variables you "wouldn't be surprised if it occured"? That's very scientific

 

[H2Andy]

But you've not seen it happen.

yes, we have

 

[Green_Manelishi]

sean, he might be asking "how did sexual reproduction come about?" (which implies a male and a female ... and which, in his mind, leads to the assumption that the first "being" was male, which leads to the following question: if you need a female to reproduce, how did you end up with a female starting only with a male?)

if so, the question is a misunderstanding of how sexual reproduction (and thus differences between the sexes) evolved.

first, there were organisms that had both "male" and "female" organs (i'm simplifying here) and which could reproduce by themselves (i.e. asexual reproduction)

at one point, these organisms started producing EITHER male OR female offspring. remember, since the "parent" has both male and female DNA, it can give off either gender to the offspring.

the same is true of you today, Green my man. your DNA has plans for building either a male or a female. your offspring can be either.

it never occurred to you that it was odd that a male parent can have a female offspring, or that a female parent can have a male offspring?

because basically that's the gist of your question: how can a female come from a male

heck, ask any daughter what her dad's name is and you got the answer =)

Fascinating. I thought I asked a simple question. Apparently not. Would you like me to rephrase it?

 

[H2Andy]

you asked a terribly confused and confusing question because you don't know what you're talking about

i mean that in the best way possible



some reading for you:

Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin's works put together.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878

check the facts for yourself, which i believe you have not done, before making up your mind

study human evolution (rather recent, with an excellent fossil record and DNA studies to boot) and you will see that we do, indeed, "see" humans evolve before our very eyes.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

"Let me know when you "prove" that dinosaurs turned into birds, or terrestrial mammals spent too much time in the water lost their legs in favor of flippers"

Don't you hate it when people give you what you ask for?

It might not be 100% proof, but it is a lot more solid evidence than a book written thousands of years ago by simple people trying to understand a complex world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6120000/newsid_6120600/6120696.stm

"Fishermen netted the creature and were shocked to spot its extra limbs.

The second set of flippers, which are near the creature's tail, are about the size of a pair of human hands and much less powerful than the front set.

Experts say this discovery supports the idea that dolphins used to live on land - as the tiny flippers could be the remains of its back legs! "

"The tiny flippers could be ..."

And the Turks that walk on all fours could be reverse-evolution.

I think some time ago a snake was found with tiny legs. This was "proof" that snakes evolved from legged reptiles.

Interesting stories all but proof of nothing. It's more likely only the result of a problem with the DNA; they are mutants. Nature is "full" of mutants. We even see humans with DNA problems having no arms, too short arms, no legs, etc. We live in a fallen, sin filled world and all of it groans under the load.

You are grasping at straws.

 

[Thalassamania]

Once again our favorite greenie is more obtuse than you guys can possibly concieve of, so I fear that you're answering the wrong question. You see … the great green one wants to know where the opposite sex comes from when a new species evolves. Despite all that's been written, greenikins appears to have wasted so much time taking fits on the floor that he missed the information. His greenness imagines that poof, like magic … there's a new species (male or female) and how can it possibly continue itself unless a member of the opposite sex has exactly the same mutation at exactly the same instant, since the definition of species, in the green mind, involves the ability to only reproduce with members of the same species. The reasoning is not circular, it isn't parallel, it isn’t quadrilatera,l its quite alien and just greenish.