100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind

[savagewind]

I watched his sermon. Snakes have both male and female reproductive organs and impregnate themselves. If snakes don't need mates, who's to say the first sexual organism did?

Are you sure?

Can snakes impregnate themselves

Answer
They cannot impregnate themselves per say but they can retain sperm from one breeding to the next as well as have litters from multiple partners.
Just to add to this thread: There was a man who claimed not too long ago that his snake impregnated itself. He claimed it had never been in contact with another snake. I think its his word against science, but just for the record their have been people who have said such things...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

"Virgin Birth" Seen in Wild Snakes, Even When Males Are Available

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

This is why you shouldn't always look to wikis for answers...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Parthenogenesis
Some amphibian species are capable of changing their biological sex characteristics to facilitate reproduction. This type of morphology (changeability) is not present in reptiles. However, some reptiles, including several snakes and lizards, can undergo a process called parthenogenisis. While this phenomenon does not entail a reptilian animal having both genders' sex organs, it does, in effect, accomplish the same reproductive goal: to allow for fertilization when one of the sexes can not be found in order to complete it.

Features
Parthenogenesis occurs within female reptiles when no male can be located for fertilization. In such an event, the female can actually produce offspring despite this lack. In all observed cases, including those of the garter and timber rattlesnake, all of the resulting offspring have been males. To substantiate that related females have not been fertilized by males, scientists inspect the DNA strands found in the offspring. Results then show that all the strands match the mother, indicating that no mate was involved in the process.

Read more: What Reptiles Have Both Male & Female Organs? | eHow

 

[savagewind]

I suppose the only way to test for parthenogenesis is to map the DNA in the offspring and when it matches the DNA in the mother or father exactly then you know it was not conceived by two, but by one. It's a clone. Yes, or no?

 

[Falvlun]

There is no scientific basis for denying evolution.

Just one logical basis he brought out in the sermon (that you did not watch) is the question, where did the first sexual organism find a mate?

This sort of question, while a good one, is characteristic of a misunderstanding of evolution and how it works.

Sexual reproduction almost certainly did not appear in one swoop. Many smaller steps occurred that led up to sexual reproduction. So, slowly, certain mechanisms were developed regarding reproduction that were beneficial to the organism. There really wasn't some dividing line that suddenly said "This organism is sexually reproducing" and "this one isn't" and the one can't mate with the other, since it all would have blurred together.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this all developed in bacteria. Single celled organisms. We aren't talking about a mouse needing to go find another mouse to mate with. It's just not really helpful to compare the two.

If you'd like an over-view, read the Wiki: Evolution of sexual reproduction. This covers why sexual reproduction is beneficial and why it was conserved.

In the heading "Origin of Reproduction" it goes over some of those small steps that preceded sexual reproduction that I was talking about.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I suppose the only way to test for parthenogenesis is to map the DNA in the offspring and when it matches the DNA in the mother or father exactly then you know it was not conceived by two, but by one. It's a clone. Yes, or no?

Not necessarily a clone. All of the offspring come out as males.

 

[outhouse]

If you equate full of self and idiot, I agree. If you mean idiot as in knowing nothing of what he speaks of I must disagree. I think he makes some very good thinking points.

Only to the uneducated.

 

[outhouse]

Did you watch it? Did anyone watch it?

Why waist time with PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I watched it for ***** and gigs. The man didn't make one "point" that made me doubt evolution for a second.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution is a theory with little or no real evidence.

False


You only refuse the vast amounts of evidence due to your theism. :slap:


There is no deabte about the facts regarding evolution. only people, usually theist who will not accept the facts regarding the science, who often promote pseudoscience instead.

Speciation is a fact.

 

[savagewind]

I watched it for ***** and gigs. The man didn't make one "point" that made me doubt evolution for a second.

He made the point that the canyon ground rises not falls, where it should, to explain water erosion. And he made the point that there are multiple layers of limestone. Why is one much older than another?

He said people use circular reasoning (which is something anti-theists criticize all the time when someone else does it) to explain the age of Earth's layers. The fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils.

He said carbon dating has been used on living things and the living things have been found to be dead thousands of years. He is preaching against lying so for the life of me I can not imagine he is making up those experiments. Do you have some proof he is making it up?

Making things up is called lying propaganda. This thread was for refuting his theories. Instead it turned into a circus.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution is a theory....

Almost right.
The Theory of Evolution explains the observable facts of Biological Evolution.

....with little or no real evidence.

All Scientific Theories are backed by falsifiable, repeatable, testable, observable and empirical evidence, Including the Theory of Evolution, Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Circuit Theory, the Theory of Relativity, etc...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Making things up is called lying propaganda.....

Exactly.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87305-dishonesty-creationists.html

 

[savagewind]

Whenever I say "no evidence of evolution" what I mean is there is no way of knowing how it started. It had to start, right? HOW did it start? There must have been a time way back when when reactions were happening at a dizzying rate. Where is the process like that now? Why can it not be observed NOW? You know, NOW?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

He is preaching against lying so for the life of me I can not imagine he is making up those experiments.

Preaching something and practicing what you preach are two entirely different things. The Philip Morris tobacco corporation owns programs that encourage people to quit smoking. Do you really think they want everyone to quit smoking?

Do you have some proof he is making it up?

Personally, I don't think Hovind is smart enough to invent these experiments off the top of his head. More likely than not, someone told him these "facts" and he's merely repeating them out of blind faith without checking sources. Either way, it's not up to me to prove these claims are false. He's the one making the claims; it's up to him to support them. I don't have to believe anything just because he said it.

 

[savagewind]

Preaching something and practicing what you preach are two entirely different things. The Philip Morris tobacco corporation owns programs that encourage people to quit smoking. Do you really think they want everyone to quit smoking?

Personally, I don't think Hovind is smart enough to invent these experiments off the top of his head. More likely than not, someone told him these "facts" and he's merely repeating them out of blind faith without checking sources. Either way, it's not up to me to prove these claims are false. He's the one making the claims; it's up to him to support them. I don't have to believe anything just because he said it.

Hallelujah! And neither do I.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Whenever I say "no evidence of evolution" what I mean is there is no way of knowing how it started. It had to start, right? HOW did it start? There must have been a time way back when when reactions were happening at a dizzying rate. Where is the process like that now? Why can it not be observed NOW? You know, NOW?

Why can't people walking on water, people being eaten alive by giant fish and surviving, talking donkeys, flaming chariots, altars of fire, talking snakes, or parting seas be observed now?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Hallelujah! And neither do I.

Evolution has evidence to back it up though. You don't have to accept any of it on face value. That's a lot more than you can say for any of Hovind's claims.

 

[savagewind]

Why can't people walking on water, people being eaten alive by giant fish and surviving, talking donkeys, flaming chariots, altars of fire, talking snakes, or parting seas be observed now?

I shall call that off topic. Is that OK with you?