It is a miracle how good sex is even if it does not create life. I think it will be impossible to unlearn the Darwin tree of life theory that is being taught in our school systems. Have you ever thought about a theory of life where every specie on earth has a separate tree from which it came. I think about the miracle of my life this way because I think a lot about my direct ancestors going back many generations to the base of my tree. Other specie other tree
Please stop trying to talk about things you don't know anything about and don't understand. There are things called schools - colleges and universities. You can go there and take an actual science class to learn about biology and evolution. Give it a try.
According to darwinian evolution sex shouldn't have happened? Than why did Darwin write so much about sexual selection? But lets get to his main point: sex is harmful for evolution and an inefficient way of reproducing. First of al look around, most organisms reproduce sexually, logically it follows that this should be a good way to do it. Secondly sex speeds up natural selection: more variation because of mixed genes equals more for natural selection to work upon equals a high evolution rate
Also, I don't know if you guys have ANY clue about biology, even life, but when different "species" (not exclussively talking about animal species) combine themselves, there comes a better result in their next generation.
If you believe that an advantageous mutations should be passed to the next generation through division and not combination-sex, let's see what kids you can have with your relatives (sister-cousin?), and what kids will you have with a strange woman.
What the hell are you talking about Randall? Darwyn's theory of evolution never said that evolution was created by dividing organisms. Evolution also "happens" from generation to generation. How do you think he suggested we are an evolution of monkeys? Don't they reproduct themselves with sex?
Evolution happens from cell mutation. We did evolve from what was once a 1 cell organism and we WILL evolve into something different in some millions/billions of years.
interesting video. This is a question Ive struggled to find a conclusive answer to. Unfortunately, your attitude and dis-regard of scientific analysis puts into question your summery. I find this a lot with creationist videos. Please take more time to carefully examine your arguement so that more people will take you seriously! If you've ever watched a video of creationists arguing against carbon dating, you'll know what Im talking about! thanks for posting this vid :)
this guy is retarded, they didn't mean emotional stress! they meant stress as in the radiation was heavy on them(genetically causing mutation), perhaps the radiations caused extreme radical mutations(Cambrian explosion-scale) in their genetic codes or what have you.and perhaps the mutations developed is how they were able to reproduce amongst themselves. also think about animals in life, most rely on there partner to make sure their offspring will live(they help) and are FAR MOREcomplexOrganisms
@XXXMikeHonchoXXX So you say but either way you look at it, the evolutionary explanation for the development of sex it really nothing more than a random guess with nothing to back it up other than the fact that they can't think of anything better. Tell me, is there any evidence of this environmental stress during the time that sex evolved, do they even know when sex evolved? Even if we assume that there was some kind of stress what are the chances that it randomly caused sex to evolve?
Not only does the theory of evolution have no answers for male and female sexual reproduction, it has no good answers for anything we see in all of nature. When one considers the innumerable coincidences evolutionist's are counting on to have happened, the odds alone make evolution a statistical impossibility....I don't have that kind of faith.
@fellowservant34 Did you ever ask a biologist about male+female sexual reproduction and the theory of evolution? Who told you they have no answers about that?
And what coincidences are you even talking about? All biology, physics, SCIENCE (!) is based on FACTS and not on faith. The only exeption I can think of, is The Big Bang, and that is just a theory, nothing proven, and they admit it.
Evolution is PROVEN, god did not create us and does not exist. I'm sorry to burst that bubble for all of you
woooo this is so awesome! i thought about this a while ago and i wasnt sure if it was a good point or not but you just proved me right :) evolution.. pshhh
The very first statement 13 seconds into the clip, is total bullshit. This guy obviously hasn't read any of Darwin's work. Way to preach to the ignorant.... That my friends is abusive! lets just dumb people down, flood them with bullshit, but use big words this time so they think we are smart. Go back to school, learn for yourself.
Perhaps, garrison68, you would be so kind as to correct Randall's alledged error. It is one thing to say that someone is mistaken; to substantiate that assertion is another task altogether!
Carl Zimmer was phrasing the issue in a rhetorical manner even with the quote used. Correct answer involves increasing biodiversity and fitness for species survival, as I'm sure Carl Zimmer answered in some manner. But lying conniving super christian cretin leaves that out.
At least one lizard reproduces by parthenogensis, so this dumbshit even has the sexual reproduction part wrong.
So what's your explanation from asexual organisms to male/female sexual reproduction?Also hell does not exist in your mind so damning me to hell would be equivolant to me damning you to rust bucket rainbow,Its stupid if you know its not there!!Or do you believe it is?Only you refuse to beleive God is also?
I think sex originated to combat against intracelluar parasite infestation. Of course, this is hypothesis, but it beats Randall Niles asteroid providing a environmental stressor, for which there is no evidence happening when sex arose..
And of course there no reason to believe in God as there is no evidence of a supernatural force acting in this world from outside.
Randall Niles provides no links to that NASA bit , I've got to wonder if he's blowing it out his ass and/or otherwise distorting the information. Most I can find is a discussion of panspermia, which is origins of life, not evoIution of sex. I know he uses creationists webiste truth origins to trash Carl Zimmer's work.
Randall Niles provides no links for his musings, but I expect nothing more from Christian liars.
@elsewherebeats1 Found the space com article Niles references. What Niles leaves out is that computer models were used, as well as a critique of being highly speculative with no corroborating evidence.
On the other hand, the presence of parasites driving evolution does have corroborating evidence such as genetic similarities and relationships.
But I'm no expert, read the space com article, and Carl Zimmer writings. You'll find Niles is a charlatan
The development of sex is a huge advantage in competing against parasites as well as conserving intracelluar organelles such as mitochondria. It is quite consistent with evolution theory. Sure Carl Zimmer explained that and which Niles ignores in his retard website he links to.
Tons of evidence for evolution,there is no other plausible explanation for development of life.
Every time I hear these evoheads I laugh and think like the Jonah's whale in the bible, asking God when he saw Jonah, " you ain't gonna make me swallow that are you?"
(did Zimmer ever try to answer his own question? If he did then I think you may have quotemined him.)
Anyway, here is a more reasonable explanation for why sex evolved:
Quite simply, it would increase fitness. The offspring would be increase genetic variation as well as helping with gene repair. cdk007 explains this much better than I do.
If sex did evolve, it would have started extremely basic. The incentives necessary for sexual reproduction to occur are present. As I showed in the last comment, it could lead to an increase in the fitness of the organism. You rightly point out that asexual reproduction would probably lead to more offspring, and that sexual reproduction has some costs associated with it.
However, if sex will increase in the fitness of organisms to the extent it outweighs rapid reproduction, sex will evolve.
Besides the mechanics of sex "evolving", One mechanism that limits one specie from evolving into a new specie- Not that it is possible, but IF an organism did make sufficient changes to arrive on earth as another specie from the parent, TWO organisms that made the identical changes in MALE and FEMALE would need to "evolve" in the same area at the same time for that organism to go any further! The odds of THAT happening? Zero! Evolution of one specie to another is not possible.
You seem to think that if sex evolved, it would have to produce a male and female randomly and simultaneously. This is not the case. There are many shades of gray in between the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. There are examples of creatures at every stage of that transition.
"speciation" is seen in the lab. Perhaps you define specie incorrectly? I can understand if you were to say new "kinds" don't evolve, but new species certainly do.
i'm not a biologist or anything but it seems to me that, farther up the food chain from bacteria and fruit flies, say in the case of a lower primate, a male and female of some higher species would have had to have mutated with new and complementary genetic material at the same exact historical time in order to successfully reproduce a new species. Any way i look at it, if evolution occurred natural selection fails to completely explain it. It had to be a sort of slow-motion miracle of God.
@urbanh196398105 You're right... you're not a biologist. Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve, at no point is one generation signficantly different from the successive generation.
To clarify my last point a bit. Evolution of sex would not happen quickly. A random mutation would not take you from being asexual to having sexual reproduction like we see between humans. The process would likely start with optional sexual reproduction at a basic level. We aren't even talking about eggs or sperm yet. This would be at the level of the cell, and refers to a process called "meosis".
p.s. I am a Christian. I just thought that might be good to clarify that.
@Epydemic2020 while I think religion is full of BS, the question I don't think is answered enough by just fitness. I mean I don't think sex keeps you that fit. I bet there are alot of fat sluts to put it pluntly. Perhaps it encourages sexual partners to be attractive in that they are healthy and capable of protecting offspring. Like when you see a male bird trying to attract a mate it can sometimes show off how it can dance and sing etc etc. I'm no expert just don't feel fitness is enough
Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. When I am talking about "fitness" I am referencing biological fitness, not fitness from the exercise associated with sex. If you have your genes come from two sources rather than one, you are better able to filter out defects.
Fancy seeing you here. I also thought back to the CDK007 video immediately when I saw this. I'm going to do my best to search for the text surrounding the quote, but I agree that quotemining is most likely. My knee jerk rebuttal to claims like is "omg! get in the peer review system! collect your nobel prize. you have obviously refuted tens of thousands of the most educated people in this field."
....This video makes no sense....
x5vampire5x 3 days ago
It is a miracle how good sex is even if it does not create life. I think it will be impossible to unlearn the Darwin tree of life theory that is being taught in our school systems. Have you ever thought about a theory of life where every specie on earth has a separate tree from which it came. I think about the miracle of my life this way because I think a lot about my direct ancestors going back many generations to the base of my tree. Other specie other tree
jamesrking1 1 week ago
If anyone watching this video wants to learn about real science, check out the video titled "Sexual And Asexual Reproduction."
jingle3 6 months ago
Please stop trying to talk about things you don't know anything about and don't understand. There are things called schools - colleges and universities. You can go there and take an actual science class to learn about biology and evolution. Give it a try.
jingle3 6 months ago
what the fuck did i just hear.
1Soleb 6 months ago
According to darwinian evolution sex shouldn't have happened? Than why did Darwin write so much about sexual selection? But lets get to his main point: sex is harmful for evolution and an inefficient way of reproducing. First of al look around, most organisms reproduce sexually, logically it follows that this should be a good way to do it. Secondly sex speeds up natural selection: more variation because of mixed genes equals more for natural selection to work upon equals a high evolution rate
klfraam 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
naneedj.infoI am very easygoing and I like nature
surangiable 1 year ago
Also, I don't know if you guys have ANY clue about biology, even life, but when different "species" (not exclussively talking about animal species) combine themselves, there comes a better result in their next generation.
If you believe that an advantageous mutations should be passed to the next generation through division and not combination-sex, let's see what kids you can have with your relatives (sister-cousin?), and what kids will you have with a strange woman.
no characters remaining. soz
orfygage 1 year ago
What the hell are you talking about Randall? Darwyn's theory of evolution never said that evolution was created by dividing organisms. Evolution also "happens" from generation to generation. How do you think he suggested we are an evolution of monkeys? Don't they reproduct themselves with sex?
Evolution happens from cell mutation. We did evolve from what was once a 1 cell organism and we WILL evolve into something different in some millions/billions of years.
orfygage 1 year ago
interesting video. This is a question Ive struggled to find a conclusive answer to. Unfortunately, your attitude and dis-regard of scientific analysis puts into question your summery. I find this a lot with creationist videos. Please take more time to carefully examine your arguement so that more people will take you seriously! If you've ever watched a video of creationists arguing against carbon dating, you'll know what Im talking about! thanks for posting this vid :)
CetraTJ 1 year ago
this guy is retarded, they didn't mean emotional stress! they meant stress as in the radiation was heavy on them(genetically causing mutation), perhaps the radiations caused extreme radical mutations(Cambrian explosion-scale) in their genetic codes or what have you.and perhaps the mutations developed is how they were able to reproduce amongst themselves. also think about animals in life, most rely on there partner to make sure their offspring will live(they help) and are FAR MOREcomplexOrganisms
XXXMikeHonchoXXX 1 year ago
@XXXMikeHonchoXXX So you say but either way you look at it, the evolutionary explanation for the development of sex it really nothing more than a random guess with nothing to back it up other than the fact that they can't think of anything better. Tell me, is there any evidence of this environmental stress during the time that sex evolved, do they even know when sex evolved? Even if we assume that there was some kind of stress what are the chances that it randomly caused sex to evolve?
slider576 1 year ago
Thanks! Vids are so great!
toasted2009 1 year ago
always an insight watching your videos, keep it up!
spamweiter 2 years ago
Not only does the theory of evolution have no answers for male and female sexual reproduction, it has no good answers for anything we see in all of nature. When one considers the innumerable coincidences evolutionist's are counting on to have happened, the odds alone make evolution a statistical impossibility....I don't have that kind of faith.
fellowservant34 2 years ago
@fellowservant34 I think you mean you don't have a basic understanding of biology.
OperationOperafox 1 year ago
@fellowservant34 Did you ever ask a biologist about male+female sexual reproduction and the theory of evolution? Who told you they have no answers about that?
And what coincidences are you even talking about? All biology, physics, SCIENCE (!) is based on FACTS and not on faith. The only exeption I can think of, is The Big Bang, and that is just a theory, nothing proven, and they admit it.
Evolution is PROVEN, god did not create us and does not exist. I'm sorry to burst that bubble for all of you
orfygage 1 year ago
woooo this is so awesome! i thought about this a while ago and i wasnt sure if it was a good point or not but you just proved me right :) evolution.. pshhh
danielleVIDZ 2 years ago
Darwins theory is dumb....Man all the evidence points towards God...(Of the Bible)
CashGiftingAyce 2 years ago
Makes perfect sense to me! You ROCK Randall! Greg
AllAboutGODcom 2 years ago
The very first statement 13 seconds into the clip, is total bullshit. This guy obviously hasn't read any of Darwin's work. Way to preach to the ignorant.... That my friends is abusive! lets just dumb people down, flood them with bullshit, but use big words this time so they think we are smart. Go back to school, learn for yourself.
garrison68 2 years ago
@garrison68 You got that right. That allaboutscience org Randall Niles links to is just himself spewing out trash. What a dishonest cretin.
robertmike57 2 years ago
Perhaps, garrison68, you would be so kind as to correct Randall's alledged error. It is one thing to say that someone is mistaken; to substantiate that assertion is another task altogether!
J
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
You entitled this vid that you THINK??? What a bunch a shit!
I can bet you did a bit of quote mining from Carl Zimmer, but I expect nothing more from lying scumbag fake hell bound Christians like you.
robertmike57 2 years ago
wow... No anger there...
I love the phrase quote mining, as it admits that the point stands, without giving the ground or admitting you're wrong!!!
LOL
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
Carl Zimmer was phrasing the issue in a rhetorical manner even with the quote used. Correct answer involves increasing biodiversity and fitness for species survival, as I'm sure Carl Zimmer answered in some manner. But lying conniving super christian cretin leaves that out.
At least one lizard reproduces by parthenogensis, so this dumbshit even has the sexual reproduction part wrong.
robertmike57 2 years ago
So what's your explanation from asexual organisms to male/female sexual reproduction?Also hell does not exist in your mind so damning me to hell would be equivolant to me damning you to rust bucket rainbow,Its stupid if you know its not there!!Or do you believe it is?Only you refuse to beleive God is also?
elsewherebeats1 2 years ago
@ elsewherebeats1
I think sex originated to combat against intracelluar parasite infestation. Of course, this is hypothesis, but it beats Randall Niles asteroid providing a environmental stressor, for which there is no evidence happening when sex arose..
And of course there no reason to believe in God as there is no evidence of a supernatural force acting in this world from outside.
robertmike57 2 years ago
I'm glad you think the asteroid stress theory is stupid.Randall was quoting Caltex/NASA evolutionists
elsewherebeats1 2 years ago
Randall Niles provides no links to that NASA bit , I've got to wonder if he's blowing it out his ass and/or otherwise distorting the information. Most I can find is a discussion of panspermia, which is origins of life, not evoIution of sex. I know he uses creationists webiste truth origins to trash Carl Zimmer's work.
Randall Niles provides no links for his musings, but I expect nothing more from Christian liars.
robertmike57 2 years ago
@elsewherebeats1 Found the space com article Niles references. What Niles leaves out is that computer models were used, as well as a critique of being highly speculative with no corroborating evidence.
On the other hand, the presence of parasites driving evolution does have corroborating evidence such as genetic similarities and relationships.
But I'm no expert, read the space com article, and Carl Zimmer writings. You'll find Niles is a charlatan
robertmike57 2 years ago
Comment back here i think its allowing me now.
elsewherebeats1 2 years ago
The development of sex is a huge advantage in competing against parasites as well as conserving intracelluar organelles such as mitochondria. It is quite consistent with evolution theory. Sure Carl Zimmer explained that and which Niles ignores in his retard website he links to.
Tons of evidence for evolution,there is no other plausible explanation for development of life.
robertmike57 2 years ago
That is your opinion...
I can provide a grocery list of scientists who feel otherwise...
so I'm afraid your point isn't quite so open and shut as you and your hate spewing buddies would like to believe...
As always the problem is NOT evidence. We ALL have the same evidence. The rub comes with an interpretational paradygm, period.
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago
LOL! A Psychologist doesn't count as a creationist scientist. Your list is a laughable joke, par for the course with creatards.
robertmike57 2 years ago
My list is a laughable joke, huh?
Psychologist, huh???
facsinating...what psychologist did you go to to imagine a list I haven't given yet?
Thankyou for disqualifying yourself from my continued effort by your psychotic refusal to examine offered facts.
KnightlySirJames1 2 years ago 3
You poor little thing, I looked at your idiot webiste t get that tidbit.
robertmike57 2 years ago
Please keep the language mild.
So, perhaps you would clare to specify where in particular Randall has been found guilty of "lying" or deception.
J
JonathanMcLatchie 2 years ago
Is it just me or who it just comparing "simple cells" to us current day humans?
I see what he is trying to put across but evolution is a complex thing and there are many reasons why we evolved that way
watchingher86 2 years ago
Give me one reason other than the one given by NASA
elsewherebeats1 2 years ago
stress with no sex...
meka4996 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh and reflect7 stop being a knob and see the light your wasting your life with religion
RonnocRetep 2 years ago
Every time I hear these evoheads I laugh and think like the Jonah's whale in the bible, asking God when he saw Jonah, " you ain't gonna make me swallow that are you?"
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
Good stuff Randall. It's nice to see something from you.
it's been some time.
God bless
Ironhoist 2 years ago 3
I have to respectfully disagree with you here.
(did Zimmer ever try to answer his own question? If he did then I think you may have quotemined him.)
Anyway, here is a more reasonable explanation for why sex evolved:
Quite simply, it would increase fitness. The offspring would be increase genetic variation as well as helping with gene repair. cdk007 explains this much better than I do.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
If sex did evolve, it would have started extremely basic. The incentives necessary for sexual reproduction to occur are present. As I showed in the last comment, it could lead to an increase in the fitness of the organism. You rightly point out that asexual reproduction would probably lead to more offspring, and that sexual reproduction has some costs associated with it.
However, if sex will increase in the fitness of organisms to the extent it outweighs rapid reproduction, sex will evolve.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Besides the mechanics of sex "evolving", One mechanism that limits one specie from evolving into a new specie- Not that it is possible, but IF an organism did make sufficient changes to arrive on earth as another specie from the parent, TWO organisms that made the identical changes in MALE and FEMALE would need to "evolve" in the same area at the same time for that organism to go any further! The odds of THAT happening? Zero! Evolution of one specie to another is not possible.
hiyosilver100 2 years ago
hiyosilver
You seem to think that if sex evolved, it would have to produce a male and female randomly and simultaneously. This is not the case. There are many shades of gray in between the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. There are examples of creatures at every stage of that transition.
"speciation" is seen in the lab. Perhaps you define specie incorrectly? I can understand if you were to say new "kinds" don't evolve, but new species certainly do.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
i'm not a biologist or anything but it seems to me that, farther up the food chain from bacteria and fruit flies, say in the case of a lower primate, a male and female of some higher species would have had to have mutated with new and complementary genetic material at the same exact historical time in order to successfully reproduce a new species. Any way i look at it, if evolution occurred natural selection fails to completely explain it. It had to be a sort of slow-motion miracle of God.
urbanh196398105 2 years ago
@urbanh196398105 You're right... you're not a biologist. Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve, at no point is one generation signficantly different from the successive generation.
OperationOperafox 1 year ago
hiyosilver
To clarify my last point a bit. Evolution of sex would not happen quickly. A random mutation would not take you from being asexual to having sexual reproduction like we see between humans. The process would likely start with optional sexual reproduction at a basic level. We aren't even talking about eggs or sperm yet. This would be at the level of the cell, and refers to a process called "meosis".
p.s. I am a Christian. I just thought that might be good to clarify that.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
@Epydemic2020 while I think religion is full of BS, the question I don't think is answered enough by just fitness. I mean I don't think sex keeps you that fit. I bet there are alot of fat sluts to put it pluntly. Perhaps it encourages sexual partners to be attractive in that they are healthy and capable of protecting offspring. Like when you see a male bird trying to attract a mate it can sometimes show off how it can dance and sing etc etc. I'm no expert just don't feel fitness is enough
RonnocRetep 2 years ago
RonnocRetep
Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. When I am talking about "fitness" I am referencing biological fitness, not fitness from the exercise associated with sex. If you have your genes come from two sources rather than one, you are better able to filter out defects.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
ok my bad
RonnocRetep 2 years ago
Fancy seeing you here. I also thought back to the CDK007 video immediately when I saw this. I'm going to do my best to search for the text surrounding the quote, but I agree that quotemining is most likely. My knee jerk rebuttal to claims like is "omg! get in the peer review system! collect your nobel prize. you have obviously refuted tens of thousands of the most educated people in this field."
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
I didn't know Will Ferrel was a creationist.
TheDeLoreanFlux 2 years ago
Quote miner Carl Zimmer, eh?
Google "Ray Comfort's continuing sex problems" because Ray believed similar crazy stuff.
zarkoff45 2 years ago