[_Stefan_]

No, it will only read your self-imposed ignorance and die of laughter.

If they haven't already read the explanations provided by members of this forum and on the rest of the internet, they can ask genuinely for further clarifications and actually learn something when they are answered.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

No, it will only read your self-imposed ignorance and die of laughter.

If they haven't already read the explanations provided by members of this forum and on the rest of the internet, they can ask genuinely for further clarifications and actually learn something when they are answered.

Stefan

The fact of the matter is that there are NONE on the internet, or in any textbook you can name.

Why is that?

[_Stefan_]

Asyncritus, lying does not make something true. Your post is a complete lie.

A Google search for "evolution of sexual reproduction", returns 566,000 results!

The argument from ignorance is not an effective argument. Lying is worse. If these are the only "tools" in your conceptual toolbox, you are intellectually bankrupt.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

My apologies for my extreme statement. There ARE  a lot of papers. However,

You should try reading them with your common sense in gear, and not just your oesophagus.

Like the very first reference to wiki:

"The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

Did you get that? In simple terms, THEY DON'T KNOW!!!!!

Want more?

" Since we saw last week that group selection is unlikely, this hypothesis is NOT likely to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction."

THEY DON'T KNOW.

You guys have to get some critical faculties in gear. The brain, not the oesophagus, is the organ of thought.

I do apologise for my extreme statement that there is nothing about sexual reproduction's origin. The fact is that the papers I have read, say they don't have a clue, as above. So my substance was right. There's nothing about how sexual reproduction ACTUALLY AROSE. Note the word ACTUALLY. It means EVIDENCED material, not just silly guesses and hypotheses.

They say that they don't know, and that's fair enough.

But that puts the ball right back in your court. Account already.

[BenV]

You guys have to get some critical faculties in gear.

Okay then.  There is, and can never be, any evidence for the existence of god.  Thinking critically, I would be forced to reject god and accept that there is another explanation for life.  I would then have to consider something that is common to all life on earth - the fact that their biochemistry and physiology is controlled by nucleic acids...

Do you honestly think that you can ask other people to think critically, while telling them that god made everything?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

I'm interested in why you are so adamant about not believing in God.

You obviously have some scientific training/knowledge, and I would have expected you to have a rather more open mind than you are exhibiting.

I can't show you a divine signature in every cell, but what would it take to reverse your opinion?

[BenV]

Good question.

The reason I have no belief in god is that I have never seen any evidence for a god, or any reason to think there may  be evidence for one.  There's no need for a god in my life, my moral guidance comes from my upbringing, and a sense of fairness and compassion instilled in me by my parents.  I have no fear of death, and so do not need to cling on the the idea of an afterlife.  I am responsible for my own actions, and do not need a deity from which to seek forgiveness.  I make my own decisions based on my personal responsibility and morals, and so do not seek guidance.  I am thankful for what I have, but it comes from the hard work and love of my parents, friends, family and myself, so need no deity to offer thanks to.

I am a reasonable person, and I understand enough about human nature and the nature of religion to understand that god, and religion, is a nothing more than a fable, a story to tell yourself to help tidy things away.

I am also an open minded person, which isn't to say I will believe anything I'm told.  Again, there is no evidence for a god, and would you expect an open minded person to believe in pixies?  I'm open minded, but also cynical - I will accept people's explanations and think them through, but I can also reject them when they are based on flawed assumptions or poor logic.

I guess the chief issue here is that we think in different paradigms.  I using reason and logic and you using religion.  This is why your comments get my back up on the forum, as you are attacking a reasoned argument from a non-reason point of view.  I wouldn't go to a religious forum to explain why I think they are all wrong, so why do you do so on a scientific forum?

What could make me believe in god? Evidence for it's existence - but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What made you choose to believe in god?

[rosy]

Asyncritus, when you understand why you don't believe in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you will understand why we don't believe in (your, or anyone else's) gods.

[Bored chemist]

Slightly off topic but can someone tell me if asyncritus means someone permanently out of step?

And actually Asyncritus, it's you who has a problem.
"The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE."
Yes, and evolution explicitly depends on variabillity. If the genetic variation were absent the evolutionists would have a problem. As things stand (ie in reality) they are fine.
"If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!"
If they got longer by practice, this would have nothing to do with dawrinian evolution.On the other hand if those who happened to have longer beaks survived better then evolution would work just fine.


I often wonder how much of His time the creationist crowd think God must put into ensuring the evolution doesn't happen.

It seems to me that it's inevitable that more successful creatures will outbreed less successful ones. If there's any variability in a species (and there always is) it must change in response to its surroundings.
Does God nip round each night undoing evolution?
Surely He must have other things to do.
Either that or he deliberately cam up with a crap system

[...lets split up...]

I read a little of what you guys said. Personally i don't argue with creationists or synonyms thereof, it makes for too much frustration in my life, just leave them alone.

As for the meaning of life i heard mention of earlier. The definition for meaning:

1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. 
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion? 

You could say that we can't know the meaning of life as we are part of the process and grasping the meaning might alter the result. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Does this make sense?

[Evie]

Slightly off topic but can someone tell me if asyncritus means someone permanently out of step?

I know you were probably kidding, but Asyncritus was an apostle (and saint), referenced by Paul. The name itself means "incomparable."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Asyncritus

[Asyncritus (OP)]

I read the name in Romans, liked it, and then found after I'd been using it for a while, that it meant incomparable. Wasn't deliberate choice with that in mind.

[jespriell]

I have a question, does the very act of selecting requires understanding?

[_Stefan_]

What do you mean by that question? Could you please elaborate?

[thelastman]

I'm surprised no one mentioned mathematics in all of that.  I know, differential equations are a bit intimidating but they open up a marvelous window into the workings of nature.  How did it all evolve?  I quote Rene' Thom:

"All creation or destruction of form or morphogenesis can be described by the disappearance of the attractor representing the initial form, and it's replacement by capture of the attractor representing the final form."

Change occurs through the underlying dynamics responsible for the change.  The dynamics gives rise to certain forms of structure one of which is an "attractor", a stable state the change tends to.  Surrounding attractors are regions called "basins of attraction" which if the dynamics happens to reach, is drawn into the attractor.  Outside this basin, the dynamics tends to other states some of which are non-stable causing the dynamics to simple fall apart.

How does the ameba, moth, and wasp know?  They don't know.  Rather all are part of dynamic systems which have been pushed into basins of attraction and have reached the attractor which is the phenomenon we perceive as the ameba engulfing food,  the reproductive cycles of the moth and wasp, the marvelous clay cathedral of the termites, and all the other wonderful forms in nature we see:  at it's most fundamental level, evolution is dynamics.

There is no designer creating these forms.  We are yet unable to fully appreciate the immense complexity of these dynamics, the long chain of events leading up to the attractors we observe, and wishing for a simple "human" explanation seek divine intervention.  I'm sorry people.  There is no God, no creator, rather only a fragile people still in many ways living in a demon-haunted world.
 

[Asyncritus (OP)]

There is no designer creating these forms.  We are yet unable to fully appreciate the immense complexity of these dynamics, the long chain of events leading up to the attractors we observe, and wishing for a simple "human" explanation seek divine intervention.  I'm sorry people.  There is no God, no creator, rather only a fragile people still in many ways living in a demon-haunted world.

If you, as a rational human being, presumably with some intelligence at your disposal, can genuinely think this, then there's really no hope for rationality and intelligence. They are withered on the vine, and blasted by the east wind.

They are meaningless terms and should be abandoned immediately.

[_Stefan_]

Don't be a hypocrite, Asyncritus! Who designed the designer?

None of the evidence indicates that the universe was designed and has an intrinsic purpose or meaning. If you want to insist that there is, you must find positive evidence for your claim.

Your criticisms of evolution are invalid because they are based in ignorance, misunderstanding, and consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. Further, even if evolution was completely falsified, there would still be no case to be made for creationism as there is no positive evidence. You continue to ignore this major point.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Don't be a hypocrite, Asyncritus! Who designed the designer?

None of the evidence indicates that the universe was designed and has an intrinsic purpose or meaning. If you want to insist that there is, you must find positive evidence for your claim.

Your criticisms of evolution are invalid because they are based in ignorance, misunderstanding, and consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. Further, even if evolution was completely falsified, there would still be no case to be made for creationism as there is no positive evidence. You continue to ignore this major point.

Don't you think this is somewhat irrational Stefan?

I've never met the designer of Mercedes cars, but I drive one.

Does that mean he doesn't exist? Or that Carl Benz is a figment of my imagination?

[LawOfBiogenesis]

newbielink:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1 [nonactive]

The whale has no vestigial legs, they are not and never have been, connected to the skeleton of the whale. They are used for sexual reproduction, as grasping devices so the whales can copulate.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

The whale has no vestigial legs, they are not and never have been, connected to the skeleton of the whale. They are used for sexual reproduction, as grasping devices so the whales can copulate.

[^] []