Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Explain the method since you're the believer. I am not saying they were "separately created." So since you may not believe that they were "separately created," perhaps you'd like to go into the dates and transference of properties with each different species stemming from that one item. Anyway, have a nice day and I have lots of things to do besides bicker over these things. But I have enjoyed the conversations...

Dodging a question because she knows that her answer will refute her claims of understanding evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Now that I am reading it again, I really do wonder what the Pope meant by that in an expanded view. So those calling themselves Christian here yes, I wonder if they believe in the distinct process of evolution...extending to...yes, what about Mary getting pregnant? Would they say that goes against the theory of evolution? If they do why not explain it? If like the Pope says God is not a wizard...

The problem with the gospel story about Mary's miraculous conception & pregnancy, is her egg not being fertilised. That’s what biologists called “parthenogenesis“.

Parthenogenesis is “one form” of ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, that occurred among some animals.

There other types of asexual reproduction.

Like fission or binary fission for unicellular prokaryotes, like bacteria and archaea. Fission involved with the parent organism (eg bacteeia) dividing itself into 2 daughter cells, that inherited identical genes as the parent organism.

Budding, a reproductive process that I don’t fully understand, occurred with some fungi; I could be wrong here, but I think budding occurs when there is a growth that growing and it is part of the parent organism, the new organism break away from the parent. Then there is another type of asexual reproduction where organisms eject spores, more precisely sporogenesis, occurs among fungi and for phyla of seedless plants.

Parthenogenesis, is the only way for animals to undergo asexual reproduction.

Here, parthenogenesis occurs without the need of fertilisation, meaning there are NO FUSION the 2 gametes (2 cells) - sperm and ovum (egg), as there are no sperm involved in this type of reproduction. The unfertilised ovum or egg, simply the full gene from the (female) parent.

In sexual reproduction, fertilisation for sexual reproduction (for animals), required production of sperm by male, annd ovum (or unfertilised egg) by the female. During copulation, sperm would fuse with ovum, thereby fertilisation occurred, and this fusion of 2 distinct gamete cells would formed into a single zygote cell, the fertilised egg. The embryo would only form, when the zygote undergo a series of cell divisions, thereby producing news for the growing

You should understand sexual reproduction of animals, as human go through this, to make babies.

Going back to parthenogenesis. The only animals capable of asexual reproduction like parthenogenesis are invertebrates, some families of fishes, some families of amphibians, less so with reptiles and with birds. Parthenogenesis have been observed (hence evidence for parthenogenesis to these animals).

But here is the most important point, there are no observed evidence of parthenogenesis ever occurring among mammals, hence it is isn’t possible & isn’t probable for any human to reproduce via parthenogenesis, as the gospels of Matthew & Luke.

Humans are terrestrial tetrapod vertebrate mammals, humans don’t belong to the groups of reptiles, birds or amphibians.

And here is the 2nd part that, you and every creationists don’t understand: humans all have total of 46 chromosomes.

When a man produce sperms, during reproduction, these sperms would only 23 chromosomes. A woman’s ovum (unfertilised egg) would only have 23 chromosomes too. It is only though fertilisation, the zygote cell will have 46 chromosomes.

So if we are to believe story of Mary conceiving without fertilisation, then her egg would only have 23 chromosomes too, and Jesus would be born with only 23 chromosomes.

That’s not possible, nor biologically & medically probable. There are cases, when there are missing even one or two chromosomes, there is likely chance that the growing embryo would develop tumour, and if it didn’t die at birth (or before birth), it would have serious defects. But missing 23 chromosomes?!

Parthenogensis isn’t possible among humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem with the gospel story about Mary's miraculous conception & pregnancy, is her egg not being fertilised. That’s what biologists called “parthenogenesis“.

Parthenogenesis is “one form” of ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, that occurred among some animals.

There other types of asexual reproduction.

Like fission or binary fission for unicellular prokaryotes, like bacteria and archaea. Fission involved with the parent organism (eg bacteeia) dividing itself into 2 daughter cells, that inherited identical genes as the parent organism.

Budding, a reproductive process that I don’t fully understand, occurred with some fungi; I could be wrong here, but I think budding occurs when there is a growth that growing and it is part of the parent organism, the new organism break away from the parent. Then there is another type of asexual reproduction where organisms eject spores, more precisely sporogenesis, occurs among fungi and for phyla of seedless plants.

Parthenogenesis, is the only way for animals to undergo asexual reproduction.

Here, parthenogenesis occurs without the need of fertilisation, meaning there are NO FUSION the 2 gametes (2 cells) - sperm and ovum (egg), as there are no sperm involved in this type of reproduction. The unfertilised ovum or egg, simply the full gene from the (female) parent.

In sexual reproduction, fertilisation for sexual reproduction (for animals), required production of sperm by male, annd ovum (or unfertilised egg) by the female. During copulation, sperm would fuse with ovum, thereby fertilisation occurred, and this fusion of 2 distinct gamete cells would formed into a single zygote cell, the fertilised egg. The embryo would only form, when the zygote undergo a series of cell divisions, thereby producing news for the growing

You should understand sexual reproduction of animals, as human go through this, to make babies.

Going back to parthenogenesis. The only animals capable of asexual reproduction like parthenogenesis are invertebrates, some families of fishes, some families of amphibians, less so with reptiles and with birds. Parthenogenesis have been observed (hence evidence for parthenogenesis to these animals).

But here is the most important point, there are no observed evidence of parthenogenesis ever occurring among mammals, hence it is isn’t possible & isn’t probable for any human to reproduce via parthenogenesis, as the gospels of Matthew & Luke.

Humans are terrestrial tetrapod vertebrate mammals, humans don’t belong to the groups of reptiles, birds or amphibians.

And here is the 2nd part that, you and every creationists don’t understand: humans all have total of 46 chromosomes.

When a man produce sperms, during reproduction, these sperms would only 23 chromosomes. A woman’s ovum (unfertilised egg) would only have 23 chromosomes too. It is only though fertilisation, the zygote cell will have 46 chromosomes.

So if we are to believe story of Mary conceiving without fertilisation, then her egg would only have 23 chromosomes too, and Jesus would be born with only 23 chromosomes.

That’s not possible, nor biologically & medically probable. There are cases, when there are missing even one or two chromosomes, there is likely chance that the growing embryo would develop tumour, and if it didn’t die at birth (or before birth), it would have serious defects. But missing 23 chromosomes?!

Parthenogensis isn’t possible among humans.

Not naturally, that's for sure.

 

[gnostic]

Not naturally, that's for sure.

The evidence for woman reproducing via parthenogenesis, not ever.

if you are saying “not naturally“, as in supernatural, then sure, if you believe in make-believe.

While today, it is possible for woman to medically & artificially go through IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) procedure to have a baby, without sexual intercourse, it still required a sperm to fertilise the woman egg, to make the zygote egg.

There are no cases of any mammal (including humans) capable of reproduction via parthenogenesis.

As I said, when woman produce the ovum (unfertilised egg), during intercourse, it only has 23 chromosomes, with the sperm that fertilise the ovum would have the other 23 chromosomes. Together there would be 46 chromosomes during fertilisation, as any normal humans would have. Without the other 23 chromosomes, there would be no embryo.

And as i said, if there is even one chromosome missing in the zygote, and if there were successful birth, there is high chance that the baby would ei be born with physical defect(s) or might be born with diseases of some kind.

if hypothetically, Mary, did indeed became pregnant without fertilisation (which isn’t possible), then Jesus would be born with only half the number of chromosomes (which also isn’t possible). Not unless, Mary was lizard.

Edit:

Some species of monitor lizards are capable of parthenogenesis, like the Komodo dragons.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence for woman reproducing via parthenogenesis, not ever.

if you are saying “not naturally“, as in supernatural, then sure, if you believe in make-believe.

While today, it is possible for woman to medically & artificially go through IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) procedure to have a baby, without sexual intercourse, it still required a sperm to fertilise the woman egg, to make the zygote egg.

There are no cases of any mammal (including humans) capable of reproduction via parthenogenesis.

As I said, when woman produce the ovum (unfertilised egg), during intercourse, it only has 23 chromosomes, with the sperm that fertilise the ovum would have the other 23 chromosomes. Together there would be 46 chromosomes during fertilisation, as any normal humans would have. Without the other 23 chromosomes, there would be no embryo.

And as i said, if there is even one chromosome missing in the zygote, and if there were successful birth, there is high chance that the baby would ei be born with physical defect(s) or might be born with diseases of some kind.

if hypothetically, Mary, did indeed became pregnant without fertilisation (which isn’t possible), then Jesus would be born with only half the number of chromosomes (which also isn’t possible). Not unless, Mary was lizard.

Edit:

Some species of monitor lizards are capable of parthenogenesis, like the Komodo dragons.

Thanks. When I started here I wanted to know what people think about the process of evolution, including the conjectures about how life in the sense of evolution began. I found my answers from you in the aggregate sense, and I thank you all for that. While recognizing that many do not believe abiogenesis relates to the process of evolution, I realize that many do believe whatever scientists say about the process. And so we go back to the possibility you may think that humans (or chimpanzees, etc.), for instance, are fish and might eventually evolve to fish.

 

[Astrophile]

Explain the method since you're the believer. I am not saying they were "separately created." So since you may not believe that they were "separately created," perhaps you'd like to go into the dates and transference of properties with each different species stemming from that one item. Anyway, have a nice day and I have lots of things to do besides bicker over these things. But I have enjoyed the conversations...

The method is descent with accumulated small modifications. All modern fish, such as halibut, must be descended from ancestral species of fish that lived during the Devonian period. There must have been a continuous lineage of ancestors and descendants from a species of Devonian fish to a modern halibut, each of which was well adapted to its environment and was slightly different from its parents and from its offspring. Because of our ignorance of ancient environments and the incompleteness of the fossil record, scientists don't know what modifications were favourable at any time, but that fact does not invalidate the essential principle of evolution by natural selection continued over very long periods.

 

[John53]

Thanks. When I started here I wanted to know what people think about the process of evolution, including the conjectures about how life in the sense of evolution began. I found my answers from you in the aggregate sense, and I thank you all for that. While recognizing that many do not believe abiogenesis relates to the process of evolution, I realize that many do believe whatever scientists say about the process. And so we go back to the possibility you may think that humans (or chimpanzees, etc.), for instance, are fish and might eventually evolve to fish.

If you spent just a fraction of the time on learning what ToE is that you spend on repeating the same things over and over you might actually be able to discuss the topic sensibly.

 

[blü 2]

Creationists aren’t hopeless cases. In my opinion, people who think the world has been here for more than 4.6 billion years are the misled ones. I won’t be so crass as you and say hopeless because there’s always hope. They are blinded by what science tells them. Hey, to each their own.

So where is your evidence that the world is NOT 4.6 bn years old?

And how old do you think the universe is, if not the nearly 14 bn years indicated by astronomy? And again, on the basis of what evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem with the gospel story about Mary's miraculous conception & pregnancy, is her egg not being fertilised. That’s what biologists called “parthenogenesis“.

Parthenogenesis is “one form” of ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, that occurred among some animals.

There other types of asexual reproduction.

Like fission or binary fission for unicellular prokaryotes, like bacteria and archaea. Fission involved with the parent organism (eg bacteeia) dividing itself into 2 daughter cells, that inherited identical genes as the parent organism.

Budding, a reproductive process that I don’t fully understand, occurred with some fungi; I could be wrong here, but I think budding occurs when there is a growth that growing and it is part of the parent organism, the new organism break away from the parent. Then there is another type of asexual reproduction where organisms eject spores, more precisely sporogenesis, occurs among fungi and for phyla of seedless plants.

Parthenogenesis, is the only way for animals to undergo asexual reproduction.

Here, parthenogenesis occurs without the need of fertilisation, meaning there are NO FUSION the 2 gametes (2 cells) - sperm and ovum (egg), as there are no sperm involved in this type of reproduction. The unfertilised ovum or egg, simply the full gene from the (female) parent.

In sexual reproduction, fertilisation for sexual reproduction (for animals), required production of sperm by male, annd ovum (or unfertilised egg) by the female. During copulation, sperm would fuse with ovum, thereby fertilisation occurred, and this fusion of 2 distinct gamete cells would formed into a single zygote cell, the fertilised egg. The embryo would only form, when the zygote undergo a series of cell divisions, thereby producing news for the growing

You should understand sexual reproduction of animals, as human go through this, to make babies.

Going back to parthenogenesis. The only animals capable of asexual reproduction like parthenogenesis are invertebrates, some families of fishes, some families of amphibians, less so with reptiles and with birds. Parthenogenesis have been observed (hence evidence for parthenogenesis to these animals).

But here is the most important point, there are no observed evidence of parthenogenesis ever occurring among mammals, hence it is isn’t possible & isn’t probable for any human to reproduce via parthenogenesis, as the gospels of Matthew & Luke.

Humans are terrestrial tetrapod vertebrate mammals, humans don’t belong to the groups of reptiles, birds or amphibians.

And here is the 2nd part that, you and every creationists don’t understand: humans all have total of 46 chromosomes.

When a man produce sperms, during reproduction, these sperms would only 23 chromosomes. A woman’s ovum (unfertilised egg) would only have 23 chromosomes too. It is only though fertilisation, the zygote cell will have 46 chromosomes.

So if we are to believe story of Mary conceiving without fertilisation, then her egg would only have 23 chromosomes too, and Jesus would be born with only 23 chromosomes.

That’s not possible, nor biologically & medically probable. There are cases, when there are missing even one or two chromosomes, there is likely chance that the growing embryo would develop tumour, and if it didn’t die at birth (or before birth), it would have serious defects. But missing 23 chromosomes?!

Parthenogensis isn’t possible among humans.

Sooo there are those who go along with evolution as the means of lifeforms like the Pope gives his ok to. Plus non-Catholics also who go to church and staunchly believe in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you spent just a fraction of the time on learning what ToE is that you spend on repeating the same things over and over you might actually be able to discuss the topic sensibly.

Please try to ask what professed believers in God and evolution figure about Mary. Then maybe you'll understand.

 

[John53]

Please try to ask what professed believers in God and evolution figure about Mary. Then maybe you'll understand.

As usual the response does not address what I posted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gee, Jehovah's Witness denies evolutionary common descent....who would've guessed?

FYI, nPeace has me on ignore for merely suggesting that his being a Witness influences his views on science


Pretty simple really. Selection is primarily driven by the environment in which the population exists. So in a cold environment, new traits that increase an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to persist and spread in the population, whereas new traits that decrease an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to be eliminated from the population. After that plays out for a period of time, you have a population that is better suited to exist in a cold climate than in a hot climate.

That's how selection generates non-random results. Again, a very simple concept.


No idea where nPeace got the idea that beneficial mutations don't exist, since we not only directly observe them, we also exploit them (domestication) and fight against them (antibiotic resistance).


Of course scientists make assumptions. But the key is, they then go and test those assumptions.

Hmm as Bertrand Russell said about the "intelligent," hmm?

 

[YoursTrue]

As usual the response does not address what I pos

It does, you just don't see it.

 

[John53]

It does, you just don't see it.

Explain how.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, your OP is attacking evolution. Nothing new. A religious agenda and a total lack of knowledge of the sciences related to evolution.

Actually, after asking questions I believe you are innately attacking the theory of evolution and will not admit your lack of understanding. Fishmen, men-fish, and more. Fish-gorillas, gorillas evolving to water dwellers, why not??

 

[YoursTrue]

Explain how.

If you would ask those here or elsewhere who profess to believe in God and evolution how they figure about Mary's getting pregnant, maybe they can open a door for you. Want to know what door? The door to better understanding...That's how. You don't want to ask? Be my guest...

 

[John53]

If you would ask those here or elsewhere who profess to believe in God and evolution how they figure about Mary's getting pregnant, maybe they can open a door for you. Want to know what door? The door to better understanding...That's how. You don't want to ask? Be my guest...

Mary getting pregnant has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of ToE or you continually spamming the same stuff for years.

Address what I posted!

 

[YoursTrue]

Mary getting pregnant has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of ToE or you continually spamming the same stuff for years.

Address what I posted!

It has a lot to do with the theory of evolution; you just don't understand it and don't want to address it. See? You may not understand, but I have no doubt you do not want to ask others who believe in evolution and Mary's pregnancy. (shrug.)

 

[John53]

It has a lot to do with the theory of evolution; you just don't understand it and don't want to address it. See? You may not understand, but I have no doubt you do not want to ask others who believe in evolution and Mary's pregnancy. (shrug.)

I couldn't care less about Mary's pregnancy or what other people think about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with ToE or what I posted to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I couldn't care less about Mary's pregnancy or what other people think about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with ToE or what I posted to you.

OK, obviously you don't want to expand your thinking. That's ok. No problem, as they say. Take care and so long.