Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men when you must know that the ToE is not a progressive process i.e. it is not goal oriented.
"Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men"
Why would anyone believe that?
Chimps are not descended from humans, nor are humans descended from chimps. No scientist says that. Again you show a gross misunderstanding of science, particularly the ToE.
Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, this isn't even disputed in science anymore.
It's rather pointless even arguing with you. All you will do is reject the evidence. You'll never learn anything this way.
If their is a common ancestor that would mean that their is mutual descendency or in other words they "came from" that ancestor and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human, the claim would be accurate. However why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?
"why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?"
That question doesn't make sense.
Your misunderstanding of scientific concepts is not helping your argument.
Humans and Chimps are both modern animals, one did not evolve before the other.
"and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human"
That is an incorrect assumption. Chimp genes have changed more than human genes in the last 6 million years, making humans more similar to our common ancestor, not chimps.
Did I say that? Why do you say this kind of crazy stuff?
I just have to wonder how you jump from simple statements to these convoluted, ignorant statements.
This is a question anyone who has taken an undergraduate biology class can answer, so it's obvious you don't know biology as well as you think you do.
To answer the question, no, there are extinct species of modern and pre-modern animals.
The Bali Tiger is an example of an extinct modern animal.
The evolution of sexual reproduction is not understood yet. This is not surprising considering the youth of science. In my own lifetime, scientific discovery has jumped by leaps and bounds. We decoded the human and chimp genome only recently and only since then did we have concrete evidence of human/chimp common ancestry.
Your argument from ignorance is not compelling. Just because we don't understand something yet is not grounds to jump to the "God did it" answer. We will continue to study it
Matching endogenous retroviral sequences in matching DNA base pairs between chimps and humans is pretty strong evidence. This is not shared between Simia and Drosophila.
Telomeres in the center of human chromosome 2 are very strong evidence supporting the theory that chimp chromosome 2a and 2b fused to form human chromosome 2.
All the genetic evidence points to common ancestry. If you have evidence to the contrary, write a paper and get it published. That is how science is conducted.
No, it is not mere speculation, there is strong evidence for a chromosome fusion, namely a fusion site in which telomeres exist where only centromeres should.
You should go sit Biology II for majors at your local college, you'll learn a great deal.
of course it is speculation otherwise it would be "proof". You can't just call any thing you want evidence of something else. Also, I understand biology quite well enough, thank you.
"of course it is speculation otherwise it would be "proof"."
I'm afraid you have a gross misunderstanding of science.
Science does not deal with "proof" that is a mathematical concept.
Science deals with different levels of confidence based on available evidence. What other explanation would there be for telomeres being in the middle of chromosome 2? Why would our chromosome be homologous to a fusion of chimp chromosome 2 a and 2b?
Maximum parsimony of the evidence points to a fusion event.
You just copied that off the web and have no idea how that applies to Cladistic Taxonomy, do you?
"Are you also saying that science doesn't "prove" anything?"
In the technical sense of the word "prove", no, science does not prove anything.
If you wants proofs, go to the Math department.
This is how I can further tell that you really don't understand science. You'd know these kinds of things if you ever took a college level science course.
Furthermore, you need to understand what scientific speculation is.
Speculation is based on logical argument. Many discussions about life on other planets falls into scientific speculation. This is not evidence and no theory is based on speculation.
However, in the case of the fusion event in human chromosome 2, this is not mere speculation since there is genetic evidence supporting the theory of a fusion event.
Telomeres should only be at the ends of a chromosome, not the middle.
In otherwords looking at telomeres in one species and comparing them to a different species is speculating that one of them is correct and the other incorrect, it requires an assumption. Do you believe that chimps came from men?
I didn't get it from the video could you do another one. In fact could you do like another 10,000. All the time your sitting their on you arse is more time your not adding to the gene pool. Moron!
What a moron! Not only does he know nothing of science he also has little to no imagination "Duh Duh how did it come about with out having fully working sexual organs". Someone post him a 'look and learn' book on evolution, please. Moron!
What do you think life is? Is it a magical force or a series of chemical interactions? What does living matter contain that non-living matter does not? If you believe in a life force or soul, where does it reside in a living organism? What mechanism is used to provide the interaction between living and non-living (atoms, molecules, etc.) parts of a body?
You are not telling the truth, so don't make the claim you are.
As for your question its not that hard to answer. Asexual reproduction would have been the first to exist. Eventually some genetic flaw would have created males (I says this because in mammals the Y chromosome is a deformed X chromosome.) Because the mutation of sexual reproduction was advantageous descendants of this organism retained this attribute. Feel free to look into this for yourself.
Advantageous? Evolution is a non-goal non-purpose driven process it does not take advantage into consideration so you are incorrect and using speculation instead of knowledge.
Yes evolution has no goal or purpose, that dose not mean that there are no traits that are more advantageous than others. Anything that gives an organism a better chance at passing on its genes is advantageous.
Sexual Reproduction is an advantageous trait. This is because it allow for greater genetic variability. Greater genetic variably gives organisms a better chance at survival ins a dynamic environment (like earth).
Your challenge should be to evolutionary biologists rather than to atheists. Most atheists are not evolutionary biologists. Moat evolutionary biologists, however, are atheists. All evolutionary biologists have clearly answered your challenge. And Desertphile has given you an excellent concise and to the point answer. I hope you watched it and paid attention, but I doubt it.
"Atheist cannot explain the evolution of reproductive organs."
What are you, an idiot child who cannot learn? It is not the venue of atheists to explain biology: biology is the venue of biologists. Good bloody grief!
If it is not your venue then why are you responding to the question with ignorance? If you didn't know then you should have remained silent instead of promoting deception. You are not only an atheist you are an anti-theist. I welcome you to make more response videos as it helps the cause of God dispelling your false information.
God created all things just as we Humans invent things except He made the materials to create His creations as well. Humans design and create things all the time and all their creations come from the materials of the earth, even the cars and planes originated with the materials of the earth.
You didnt answer any of my objections, just just made random assertions. Your fallacies remain. And you still havent explained how God allegedly did anything.
Sure I did I said God made man out of the materials of the earth in the same way that man makes things from the materials of the earth. Just like a potter and his clay.
"Sure I did I said God made man out of the materials of the earth in the same way that man makes things from the materials of the earth. Just like a potter and his clay."
If you can't answer HOW then you're answer has no relevance.
HOW though? You havent told me the process or the mechanism. If I I said "nature makes plants grow", I havent explained anything. I I would have to explain how/why nature makes plants go.
At best, you have said that God uses hands to mold things.
Desertphile quickly disabled the comment section on his video response to my original post "Sexual Reproduction" Why? Because he was not aware of my understanding(Praise God!)
So are you suggesting that researchers give up, and just proclaim "its too hard. lets just say it was magic." C'mon! What if cancer researchers took your additude?
"Wikipedia: "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle.""
You fool, you aren't supposed to quote mine from wikipedia, you're supposed to quote mine from scientists! Creationists even need people to tell them how to be dishonest correctly.
Didn't destertphile recommend a book to you on the subject? also, you Christians really do need to stop trying to disprove evolution. It won't prove Christianity, and there are much better arguments for Christianity/reasons to be a Christian.
Anyhow, I have not researched the subject of how sexual organs evolved. I would guess that hermaphrodites came first and then they seperated into male and female.
Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation.
Even if that is so, what does that say about devine interferrence????
Absolutly nothing!!!!! Yust saying, oh we do not know what happend exactly therfore it was god is a reaction expected by someone whose IQ is lower than his body temperature in Celsius!
"...the answer is still very much open to speculation..."
Um, no. A visit to your local public library and a look at books on evolution should disabuse you of your ignorance -- unless it's willful occult ignorance in which case no amount of science will cure you.
Again! WTF does the LUCA hypothesis have to do with it? You have yet to make a single point regarding it! Besides, why would anyone 'believe' in the Universal Common Ancestor, it's a hypothesis and therefore unevidenced.
Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men when you must know that the ToE is not a progressive process i.e. it is not goal oriented.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"Interesting enough you will not believe that Chimps have come from men"
Why would anyone believe that?
Chimps are not descended from humans, nor are humans descended from chimps. No scientist says that. Again you show a gross misunderstanding of science, particularly the ToE.
Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, this isn't even disputed in science anymore.
It's rather pointless even arguing with you. All you will do is reject the evidence. You'll never learn anything this way.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
If their is a common ancestor that would mean that their is mutual descendency or in other words they "came from" that ancestor and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human, the claim would be accurate. However why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"why not believe that man evolved first and then the chimp?"
That question doesn't make sense.
Your misunderstanding of scientific concepts is not helping your argument.
Humans and Chimps are both modern animals, one did not evolve before the other.
"and assuming that that ancestor was more like a chimp than a human"
That is an incorrect assumption. Chimp genes have changed more than human genes in the last 6 million years, making humans more similar to our common ancestor, not chimps.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
Modern animals? Can you give an example of a non-modern animal?
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"Can you give an example of a non-modern animal?"
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Archaeopteryx is a non-modern animal.
You've never heard a taxonomist speak of modern birds, modern reptiles, etc?
No, I don't suppose you have ever spoken to a taxonomist at all.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
So all living animals are modern and any extinct animal is non-modern? So will the polar bear be non-modern when it is extinct?
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"any extinct animal is non-modern?"
Did I say that? Why do you say this kind of crazy stuff?
I just have to wonder how you jump from simple statements to these convoluted, ignorant statements.
This is a question anyone who has taken an undergraduate biology class can answer, so it's obvious you don't know biology as well as you think you do.
To answer the question, no, there are extinct species of modern and pre-modern animals.
The Bali Tiger is an example of an extinct modern animal.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
The evolution of sexual reproduction is not understood yet. This is not surprising considering the youth of science. In my own lifetime, scientific discovery has jumped by leaps and bounds. We decoded the human and chimp genome only recently and only since then did we have concrete evidence of human/chimp common ancestry.
Your argument from ignorance is not compelling. Just because we don't understand something yet is not grounds to jump to the "God did it" answer. We will continue to study it
UltraSWG 3 years ago
There is no concrete evidence of such a relationship. The fruit fly has as much homogonous DNA as the chimp. Even a potato has a 73% match.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
Matching endogenous retroviral sequences in matching DNA base pairs between chimps and humans is pretty strong evidence. This is not shared between Simia and Drosophila.
Telomeres in the center of human chromosome 2 are very strong evidence supporting the theory that chimp chromosome 2a and 2b fused to form human chromosome 2.
All the genetic evidence points to common ancestry. If you have evidence to the contrary, write a paper and get it published. That is how science is conducted.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
Fusion is speculation and has no place in science.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
No, it is not mere speculation, there is strong evidence for a chromosome fusion, namely a fusion site in which telomeres exist where only centromeres should.
You should go sit Biology II for majors at your local college, you'll learn a great deal.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
of course it is speculation otherwise it would be "proof". You can't just call any thing you want evidence of something else. Also, I understand biology quite well enough, thank you.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"of course it is speculation otherwise it would be "proof"."
I'm afraid you have a gross misunderstanding of science.
Science does not deal with "proof" that is a mathematical concept.
Science deals with different levels of confidence based on available evidence. What other explanation would there be for telomeres being in the middle of chromosome 2? Why would our chromosome be homologous to a fusion of chimp chromosome 2 a and 2b?
Maximum parsimony of the evidence points to a fusion event.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
Parsimony is not statistically consistent. Are you also saying that science doesn't "prove" anything?
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"Parsimony is not statistically consistent."
You just copied that off the web and have no idea how that applies to Cladistic Taxonomy, do you?
"Are you also saying that science doesn't "prove" anything?"
In the technical sense of the word "prove", no, science does not prove anything.
If you wants proofs, go to the Math department.
This is how I can further tell that you really don't understand science. You'd know these kinds of things if you ever took a college level science course.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
Furthermore, you need to understand what scientific speculation is.
Speculation is based on logical argument. Many discussions about life on other planets falls into scientific speculation. This is not evidence and no theory is based on speculation.
However, in the case of the fusion event in human chromosome 2, this is not mere speculation since there is genetic evidence supporting the theory of a fusion event.
Telomeres should only be at the ends of a chromosome, not the middle.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
To say Telomeres should be at the ends of a chromosome is assumptive and presumptuous. Telomeres only must be wherever they are found.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
"Telomeres only must be wherever they are found."
What a nonsensical statement.
In that case, a knife in your chest is not out of the ordinary at all, for a knife must be only where it is found... right?
Sorry, but forensic science does not work that way. Your argument would never be taken seriously, not even by theistic scientists.
I wonder if you even know what a telomere is. Why don't you use the power of the internet to go look it up.
UltraSWG 3 years ago
In otherwords looking at telomeres in one species and comparing them to a different species is speculating that one of them is correct and the other incorrect, it requires an assumption. Do you believe that chimps came from men?
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
Jeez.. did he even bother to do a simple google search before this embarrassment?
infidelguy 3 years ago
Sexual reproduction is a puzzle to scientists and you are aware of this.
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
I didn't get it from the video could you do another one. In fact could you do like another 10,000. All the time your sitting their on you arse is more time your not adding to the gene pool. Moron!
SuperLemonchipchip 4 years ago
What a moron! Not only does he know nothing of science he also has little to no imagination "Duh Duh how did it come about with out having fully working sexual organs". Someone post him a 'look and learn' book on evolution, please. Moron!
SuperLemonchipchip 4 years ago
Evolution as decribed by the ToE is a myth
Bodhitharta 3 years ago
Uh... looks like someone missed his biology lessons in school...
NettiWelho 4 years ago
Well, you can still go to a community college Nettiwelho
twilightpetal 4 years ago
What do you think life is? Is it a magical force or a series of chemical interactions? What does living matter contain that non-living matter does not? If you believe in a life force or soul, where does it reside in a living organism? What mechanism is used to provide the interaction between living and non-living (atoms, molecules, etc.) parts of a body?
imyyz4u 4 years ago
You are not telling the truth, so don't make the claim you are.
As for your question its not that hard to answer. Asexual reproduction would have been the first to exist. Eventually some genetic flaw would have created males (I says this because in mammals the Y chromosome is a deformed X chromosome.) Because the mutation of sexual reproduction was advantageous descendants of this organism retained this attribute. Feel free to look into this for yourself.
Psychosaur 4 years ago
Advantageous? Evolution is a non-goal non-purpose driven process it does not take advantage into consideration so you are incorrect and using speculation instead of knowledge.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
Yes evolution has no goal or purpose, that dose not mean that there are no traits that are more advantageous than others. Anything that gives an organism a better chance at passing on its genes is advantageous.
Sexual Reproduction is an advantageous trait. This is because it allow for greater genetic variability. Greater genetic variably gives organisms a better chance at survival ins a dynamic environment (like earth).
Psychosaur 4 years ago
"Evolution is a non-goal non-purpose driven process it does not take advantage into consideration"
That is not true at all. Evolution by means of Natural Selection is all about propagating advantageous genes.
A trait that gives an organism an advantage over it's peers to reproduce will be passed on to the next generation.
An advantage could simply be better camouflage, a better voice, or more muscle mass.
Are you implying that competition for mates does not happen?
UltraSWG 3 years ago
Your challenge should be to evolutionary biologists rather than to atheists. Most atheists are not evolutionary biologists. Moat evolutionary biologists, however, are atheists. All evolutionary biologists have clearly answered your challenge. And Desertphile has given you an excellent concise and to the point answer. I hope you watched it and paid attention, but I doubt it.
Kailoa36 4 years ago
No evolutionary biologist has ever answered the question. Do you believe in Abiogenesis?
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
"Atheist cannot explain the evolution of reproductive organs."
What are you, an idiot child who cannot learn? It is not the venue of atheists to explain biology: biology is the venue of biologists. Good bloody grief!
Desertphile 4 years ago
If it is not your venue then why are you responding to the question with ignorance? If you didn't know then you should have remained silent instead of promoting deception. You are not only an atheist you are an anti-theist. I welcome you to make more response videos as it helps the cause of God dispelling your false information.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
"If it is not your venue then why are you responding to the question with ignorance?"
No.
Desertphile 4 years ago
No what? And yet you responded again.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
I dont understand. How is it either evolution or
magic? Just because there isnt an answer right now doesnt mean that there will NEVER be one. Your whole argument is a god of the gaps theory.
Thats 2 logical fallacies in one swoop, a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance (3 if we count the argument from incredulity).
If you want us to think that God did it, you have to explain how.
zakiechan 4 years ago
God created all things just as we Humans invent things except He made the materials to create His creations as well. Humans design and create things all the time and all their creations come from the materials of the earth, even the cars and planes originated with the materials of the earth.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
You didnt answer any of my objections, just just made random assertions. Your fallacies remain. And you still havent explained how God allegedly did anything.
zakiechan 4 years ago
Sure I did I said God made man out of the materials of the earth in the same way that man makes things from the materials of the earth. Just like a potter and his clay.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
"Sure I did I said God made man out of the materials of the earth in the same way that man makes things from the materials of the earth. Just like a potter and his clay."
If you can't answer HOW then you're answer has no relevance.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Agreed. And "magic" isnt an answer.
zakiechan 4 years ago
I did answer how.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
No you didn't. You said THAT God made everything but you don't say HOW God made everything.
alienspy07 4 years ago
HOW though? You havent told me the process or the mechanism. If I I said "nature makes plants grow", I havent explained anything. I I would have to explain how/why nature makes plants go.
At best, you have said that God uses hands to mold things.
zakiechan 4 years ago
Desertphile quickly disabled the comment section on his video response to my original post "Sexual Reproduction" Why? Because he was not aware of my understanding(Praise God!)
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
You, sir, are a goddamned liar. None of my videos have their comment features disabled.
Desertphile 4 years ago
It has now been changed back. However, it was disabled. If it was not intentional I apologize but it was certainly disabled.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
"It has now been changed back. However, it was disabled"
No, and no. You are a goddamned liar.
Desertphile 4 years ago
"Desertphile quickly disabled the comment section on his video response"
Liar. God damned pile of ignorant shit liar. Doesn't your paper idol instruct you mother fuckers not to lie for your gods?
NotSoOldHippy 4 years ago
I am telling the truth, it was disabled but once again if it wasn't intentional I understand, okay?
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
Wikipedia: "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle."
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
So are you suggesting that researchers give up, and just proclaim "its too hard. lets just say it was magic." C'mon! What if cancer researchers took your additude?
zakiechan 4 years ago
No, I'm saying spend the research money on something practical or worthwhile than wasting it when the answer is already known. God created the sexes.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
"Wikipedia: "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle.""
You fool, you aren't supposed to quote mine from wikipedia, you're supposed to quote mine from scientists! Creationists even need people to tell them how to be dishonest correctly.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Scientist don't have any idea, do you? No!
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
Didn't destertphile recommend a book to you on the subject? also, you Christians really do need to stop trying to disprove evolution. It won't prove Christianity, and there are much better arguments for Christianity/reasons to be a Christian.
Anyhow, I have not researched the subject of how sexual organs evolved. I would guess that hermaphrodites came first and then they seperated into male and female.
alienspy07 4 years ago
Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation.
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
Even if that is so, what does that say about devine interferrence????
Absolutly nothing!!!!! Yust saying, oh we do not know what happend exactly therfore it was god is a reaction expected by someone whose IQ is lower than his body temperature in Celsius!
AlexGerau 4 years ago
"...the answer is still very much open to speculation..."
Um, no. A visit to your local public library and a look at books on evolution should disabuse you of your ignorance -- unless it's willful occult ignorance in which case no amount of science will cure you.
NotSoOldHippy 4 years ago
You really don't get it, do you? Tell me, do you believe in a Universal Common Ancestor?
Bodhitharta 4 years ago
Again! WTF does the LUCA hypothesis have to do with it? You have yet to make a single point regarding it! Besides, why would anyone 'believe' in the Universal Common Ancestor, it's a hypothesis and therefore unevidenced.
WizardJim 4 years ago
I Agree 100%
Bodhitharta 4 years ago