Why do men have nipples?

[camanintx]

[FONT=&quot]You are easily saying the word " just evoluted" but the question is "How?!"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The complex cell, organs , genes are explained by " just evoluted">>>>>[/FONT]
If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by coincidence, then there is
nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story
of a town:

[FONT=&quot]I have a better story for you:[/FONT]

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

[FONT=&quot]

( Evolution Deciet , Haroun Yehia)

[/FONT]

 

[FDRC2014]

Our complementary sexual organs evolved when we came out the water, and there was no longer the water to hold the sperm in during fertilisation.

Incorrect... it predates vertebrates coming onto land. It's a feature that evolved a few times in fact, and has little to do with water. It has more to do with reproductive competition.

I wasn't saying it couldn't evolve with convergent evolution. The penis and vagina complementation will have an advantage to other methods for humans. Grant not all land animals have a penis and vagina like ours.

Actually what is really interesting are serial hermaphrodites and the fact that sex started as a hermaphroditic enterprise that later divided labor between two distinct sexes. But I'm sure this isn't supposed to be a thread about the evolution of sex.

Pretty cool

A lot more has to do with the mothers hormone levels as well as environmental factors... sex and gender are complicated developmental processes. The major determinants of sex/gender happen in the womb... secondary sexual characteristics happen in puberty.

Our sex is genetic!
Its determined by the SRY, usually on the Y chromosome.

why should we die fit? Generally having your body wear out is a pretty good way to make sure you die. It also gets you wondering about your mortality and encourages group bonding by caring for the sick and infirm.

Or... Any negative trait that occurs after reproductive age would never evolve out of a population. This is more likely that god decided wearing us out is a sure way to kill us. A better way would be for us to live fit and well, then one day we drop dead of a brain haemorrhage, quick, relatively painless. But evolution said no.

Indeed, one of the most interesting (and significant) moments in human evolution was when we started to care for our post-reproductive group members. We are in a very exclusive club of species to do so, far more exclusive than the tool users club.

Yes, but this can be explained by evolution. There is a whole branch on altruism. It all depends if it is beneficial or not (on a long term scale).

If evolution was the method of creation, why should it be perfect? Also, why must "God" be infinitely powerful?

Well he doesn't have to be infinitely powerful.
But if evolution is the method of speciation, which all the evidence points towards, there is no need for a god to do this.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I wasn't saying it couldn't evolve with convergent evolution. The penis and vagina complementation will have an advantage to other methods for humans. Grant not all land animals have a penis and vagina like ours.

It still evolved in the water first. Fossils show that internal fertilization was going on in placoderm fish millions of years before tetropods arrived on the scene.

Pretty cool

Our sex is genetic!
Its determined by the SRY, usually on the Y chromosome.

mostly... but there are lots of other factors going on that produce a spectrum of gender/sex in our species. For example XXY and other chromosome anomalies... the presence of high levels of estrogen analogs in utero and exposure during post natal development. Even temperature can play a role, as fetuses/children exposed to cold are more likely to be smaller to those that are kept warm.

Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexual differentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I generally avoid wiki as a source, but I don't have a lot of time at the moment for Lit mining.)

Or... Any negative trait that occurs after reproductive age would never evolve out of a population. This is more likely that god decided wearing us out is a sure way to kill us. A better way would be for us to live fit and well, then one day we drop dead of a brain haemorrhage, quick, relatively painless. But evolution said no.

Negative (or positive) traits that develop during life generally aren't passed to the next generation anyway. That would be Lamarckism not evolution.
Evolution didn't say anything.... it's not a thing, it's a process.
"Better" is also a very loaded word, I for one don't thing a brain hemorrhage is anything to look forward to.

Yes, but this can be explained by evolution. There is a whole branch on altruism. It all depends if it is beneficial or not (on a long term scale).

It's a bit more complicated than that. For example I only know of two species that regularly live any significant time beyond their reproductive years: humans and Elephants.

(other apes are perfectly capable of living well beyond their reproductive years in captivity but seldom, if ever, do so in the wild.)

Clearly post reproductive adults play an important role in highly social, long lived species.... but just because this is so, doesn't mean the trait will evolve in those species. Something interesting happened in Elephants and humans to make us care for our post reproductive group members while other species don't.

Well he doesn't have to be infinitely powerful.
But if evolution is the method of speciation, which all the evidence points towards, there is no need for a god to do this.

There is no need for God to not do it either.
There are plenty of religions out there that accommodate a "natural" god. God is a very broad concept.

wa:do

 

[Where Is God]

What is a pastie? Other than something you eat, or am I missing something,

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD +1 win.

 

[Where Is God]

I would assume that we have nipples as a reason to show an aroused state of mind (If the boner didn't give it away?)

 

[FDRC2014]

It still evolved in the water first. Fossils show that internal fertilization was going on in placoderm fish millions of years before tetropods arrived on the scene.



mostly... but there are lots of other factors going on that produce a spectrum of gender/sex in our species. For example XXY and other chromosome anomalies... the presence of high levels of estrogen analogs in utero and exposure during post natal development. Even temperature can play a role, as fetuses/children exposed to cold are more likely to be smaller to those that are kept warm.

Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexual differentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I generally avoid wiki as a source, but I don't have a lot of time at the moment for Lit mining.)

Well i suppose this comes down to how you define male and female. Klinefelter syndrome (47-XXY) would exhibit mainly mail phenotype as they have the TDF on the Y. Hence this factor is genetic. The hormones are based upon genetic factors.
Then you mention other environmental factors such as temperature. This is not a sex determining factor though. The environment obviously plays a key role, in certain developmental steps.

Negative (or positive) traits that develop during life generally aren't passed to the next generation anyway. That would be Lamarckism not evolution.

If they are genetic they do. For example increased risk of a heat attack or Huntington's. This is why huntington's is still around, and why we age.

Evolution didn't say anything.... it's not a thing, it's a process.
"Better" is also a very loaded word, I for one don't thing a brain hemorrhage is anything to look forward to.

This was taking a stab at what a creationist would say. Living to a good age with good health (i.e. no hypertension, wrinkles, etc), then dying quickly seems better than slowly deteriorating wearing out slowly to have a slow death. Pick one option, evolution obviously picks the latter as it simply doesn't care once you have had babies. God I would have thought would pick the former. This is what I was getting at.

It's a bit more complicated than that. For example I only know of two species that regularly live any significant time beyond their reproductive years: humans and Elephants.

(other apes are perfectly capable of living well beyond their reproductive years in captivity but seldom, if ever, do so in the wild.)

Clearly post reproductive adults play an important role in highly social, long lived species.... but just because this is so, doesn't mean the trait will evolve in those species. Something interesting happened in Elephants and humans to make us care for our post reproductive group members while other species don't.

Many species live past post reductive stage. My dog is past reproduction, cats and lions too. But by how long is obviously much due to the environment. I know lions will care for an older unfit lion just to help with the babies, as this is beneficial to the pack. The same goes for the loyalty of a dog to its pack (or owner). I don't think this contradicts anything i have said.
Evolution supports the best adapted for it's environment with increased fitness. A pack of lions that use an older lion to care for the young while they hunt if more fit than one that doesn't.

There is no need for God to not do it either.
There are plenty of religions out there that accommodate a "natural" god. God is a very broad concept.

I agree.
A stereotype christian god, or a creationist god, who is claimed to be infinitely powerful would contradict the above. But obviously if your god is just a 'natural' god, then that wouldn't contradict anything. But that presents the question why do we need a god at all. Which I don't think we do, but why do people still believe.

wa:do

What does this mean?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes... But if we had a designer, he would just have the nipple genes after the same promotors of female sex genes, hence only females would exhibit them.

Not really. If we were designed, then obviously this is how we were designed. That is a very weak argument against a designer. The male and female anatomy are very similar in many areas, to the point where men can even develop breasts. Personally if I was designing something, I would think a base model would be much easier to use than making two separate models.

Our sex is genetic!
Its determined by the SRY, usually on the Y chromosome.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, not always. There are so many sex-chromosome variances that the Y chromosome in many cases is not the determining factor.

Actually what is really interesting are serial hermaphrodites and the fact that sex started as a hermaphroditic enterprise that later divided labor between two distinct sexes. But I'm sure this isn't supposed to be a thread about the evolution of sex.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. I have been curious about that subject.

 

[FDRC2014]

Not really. If we were designed, then obviously this is how we were designed. That is a very weak argument against a designer. The male and female anatomy are very similar in many areas, to the point where men can even develop breasts. Personally if I was designing something, I would think a base model would be much easier to use than making two separate models.

Well yes, this is a good point, have one model and make it into two. Oh wait, that's what happened in evolution. I thought God created man first, so surely nipples are an addition, not a subtraction.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, not always. There are so many sex-chromosome variances that the Y chromosome in many cases is not the determining factor.

I didn't say the Y chromosome was, just the SRY, which is usually on the Y.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. I have been curious about that subject.

Im not too sure on the exact evolution of sexes, but i didn't write the above anyway.

 

[painted wolf]

Well i suppose this comes down to how you define male and female. Klinefelter syndrome (47-XXY) would exhibit mainly mail phenotype as they have the TDF on the Y. Hence this factor is genetic. The hormones are based upon genetic factors.

Have you actually looked into these disorders? Did you read about intersexed individuals?

Then you mention other environmental factors such as temperature. This is not a sex determining factor though. The environment obviously plays a key role, in certain developmental steps.

Key in some species. Not every species is XY. Also, did you check the article on intersexed individuals?

If they are genetic they do. For example increased risk of a heat attack or Huntington's. This is why huntington's is still around, and why we age.

No... Huntington's is inherited normally and passed down normally. It's not an acquired trait that is passed down. Indeed it's an autosomal dominant trait that is influenced by the number of repeats in the mutated sequence. Less than 36 and you are ok...more than that is bad. More than 40 and you have the full blown syndrome.

If I get lung cancer from asbestos, that is due to a genetic change... but I can't pass that to my children any more than I can pass down being strong by lifting weights.

To sum up.... good or bad traits gained during adulthood don't generally matter because they have no influence on gametes.

This was taking a stab at what a creationist would say. Living to a good age with good health (i.e. no hypertension, wrinkles, etc), then dying quickly seems better than slowly deteriorating wearing out slowly to have a slow death. Pick one option, evolution obviously picks the latter as it simply doesn't care once you have had babies. God I would have thought would pick the former. This is what I was getting at.

Generally they dismiss your whole premise as "the wages of sin"

Many species live past post reductive stage. My dog is past reproduction, cats and lions too. But by how long is obviously much due to the environment. I know lions will care for an older unfit lion just to help with the babies, as this is beneficial to the pack. The same goes for the loyalty of a dog to its pack (or owner). I don't think this contradicts anything i have said. ]/quote]
No, your dog is not post-reproductive. Dogs,lions and so on... go through decreased fertility....but never "menopause".
Canine reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lions do not care for elderly sick or injured lions... female lions will care for their sisters cubs sometimes, but male lions kill unrelated cubs to provide access to breed with the mother. How tolerant lions are to cubs varies with the breeding status of other members of the pride. Cubless females are intolerant of other females cubs and have been known to injure even kill them.

Evolution supports the best adapted for it's environment with increased fitness. A pack of lions that use an older lion to care for the young while they hunt if more fit than one that doesn't.

Except they don't. An old lion is a dead lion (lions can live to 20 in captivity but rarely past 14 in the wild). Cubs are left to fend for themselves while the adults hunt. Female lions won't even let other members of the pride near them until they are about 8 weeks old.

If evolution simply supports "the best" then lions would be much better parents. But evolution is much more complicated than that.

I agree.
A stereotype christian god, or a creationist god, who is claimed to be infinitely powerful would contradict the above. But obviously if your god is just a 'natural' god, then that wouldn't contradict anything. But that presents the question why do we need a god at all. Which I don't think we do, but why do people still believe.

God is a very complex idea... deeply rooted in human history, culture, psychology and possibly to a degree genetics.
Why do humans need art or music?

What does this mean?

read my sig.

wa:do

 

[FDRC2014]

Have you actually looked into these disorders? Did you read about intersexed individuals?

Yeh, as i said, it depends on how you define the sex of an individual. You said inter-sex, I said mainly male. Obviously the part making the inter-sexed human have some male traits is from SRY.

Key in some species. Not every species is XY. Also, did you check the article on intersexed individuals?

Yep, it's interesting. And yeh, you can use other examples where this may be the case.

No... Huntington's is inherited normally and passed down normally. It's not an acquired trait that is passed down. Indeed it's an autosomal dominant trait that is influenced by the number of repeats in the mutated sequence. Less than 36 and you are ok...more than that is bad. More than 40 and you have the full blown syndrome.

I still think you misunderstood what i was getting at. It is because huntington's is expressed after normal reproductive age that it has not evolved out of our population. Much like normal ageing.

If I get lung cancer from asbestos, that is due to a genetic change... but I can't pass that to my children any more than I can pass down being strong by lifting weights.

Correct, only susceptibility. This does not affect the germ line.

To sum up.... good or bad traits gained during adulthood don't generally matter because they have no influence on gametes.

Unless they were caused by the gamete. This is what I was getting at with Huntington's and increased risk of heart attack etc. The trait happens during adulthood (after reproductive age), but is still genetic. This is why we age.

Generally they dismiss your whole premise as "the wages of sin"

Oh yes, i forgot about the talking snake convincing a rib-woman to eat a magical apple that cast sin on all further humanity!

Many species live past post reductive stage. My dog is past reproduction, cats and lions too. But by how long is obviously much due to the environment. I know lions will care for an older unfit lion just to help with the babies, as this is beneficial to the pack. The same goes for the loyalty of a dog to its pack (or owner). I don't think this contradicts anything i have said.
No, your dog is not post-reproductive. Dogs,lions and so on... go through decreased fertility....but never "menopause".
Canine reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stand corrected with regard to the dogs reproductive age. But, obviously the older lions/dogs would be less likely to bread.

Lions do not care for elderly sick or injured lions... female lions will care for their sisters cubs sometimes, but male lions kill unrelated cubs to provide access to breed with the mother. How tolerant lions are to cubs varies with the breeding status of other members of the pride. Cubless females are intolerant of other females cubs and have been known to injure even kill them. Except they don't. An old lion is a dead lion (lions can live to 20 in captivity but rarely past 14 in the wild). Cubs are left to fend for themselves while the adults hunt. Female lions won't even let other members of the pride near them until they are about 8 weeks old.

The females will care for the packs cubs, often if a female is older, she will care while the younger one goes and hunts. This is beneficial to the pack (genes of the pack). Also the same goes for the males, when they kill another packs cubs to gain access to their mother, this is beneficial to the packs genes. Most of us have evolved to take the whole world as 'our pack' hence why we show altruism to most people. This can be seen to be untrue where some people are racist, or one religion may want to kill another. But all in all, people are quite good to each other, as it is evolutionary beneficial.

If evolution simply supports "the best" then lions would be much better parents. But evolution is much more complicated than that.

I will repeat what i said "Evolution supports the best adapted for it's environment with increased fitness. A pack of lions that use an older lion to care for the young while they hunt if more fit than one that doesn't."
This explains most animal behaviour. It is the fitness of the pack, which contains related genes. The selfish gene! What i say above is not simply 'the best'.

God is a very complex idea... deeply rooted in human history, culture, psychology and possibly to a degree genetics.

True True

Why do humans need art or music?

There are whole books written about this. But as far as i am aware, it is evolved from our pack/tribe like behaviour. Music provides a sense of being, and provides bonding ability, which would be beneficial to a tribe. It originally probably evolved from tribal calls, and signals, which is why it makes us feel good (obviously its a good thing hearing our tribe, giving us a deep sense of being). We tend to like music that other people like us like, people who we associate with, or who inspire us, again from the sense of being and tribal music. Art, it a bit more difficult, but i think it is a similar thing. We tend to like art that gives us a sense of being, releases the right hormones. This could be simply because it reminds us of somewhere, or it fits to our current 'tribe'. For example, i know many of my friends started to like pop-art more now just a few of them started to use the pop-art modifiers on their photos. It is an evolutionary advantage to get good feelings when seeing something that reminds you of something, whether this be subconscious or not.

read my sig.

wa:do

thanks

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]

PART 1

[/FONT]

There are many articles on exactly how sexes arose. They are scientific papers and supported by evidence; mostly genetic.

[FONT=&quot]still theories not evidence.

Yes... But if we had a designer, he would just have the nipple genes after the same promotors of female sex genes, hence only females would exhibit them.

You think nipples have no function in males, but I don't think so and have explained before so there's no need to repeat. Believe what you want to believe.

The development of any sex related organ or tissue (such as the ligament), arose from genetic drift, and an original mutation. It's not just one mutation forms a ligament, it will be a more complex genetic change, based upon what is beneficial to the organism - the ligament will probably have originated from another ligament somewhere else, but this can only be hypothesised, as I cant see the genetics of it.

Because it's an egregious fraud.

DNA is so complex that random change can be creative. Mutations have proven to be more damaging than inventive. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences;(DNA) these can either have no effect, alter the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]product of a gene[/FONT][FONT=&quot], or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Drosophila melanogaster[/FONT][FONT=&quot] suggest that if a mutation changes a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]protein[/FONT][FONT=&quot] produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]( [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I don't understand what you are saying here, the phenotype is based on the genotype? Any hereditable morphological trait is genetic, obviously.

Yes, but phenotypic changes can never covert to genotypes, so the only method for the claimed evolution must be through genotypic mutations which are proven more harmful rather than beneficial. Eventually , the balance of the effect of mutations goes towards destruction rather than creativity even if some mutations are beneficial.

To a degree, atrophy will take place. The disuse of a once advantageous trait will cause atrophy. This is because of the disadvantage the trait causes to the development (i.e. men having breasts would be a disadvantage).
And im not really saying men evolved from women, it was just advantageous devision of labour, and increased genetic diversity (being able to reproduce sexually).

Yes, if they disuse their breasts ( if u think they had a breast) they may atrophy , however this atrophy can't be printed on genes and transferred to next generations.

No, you don't seem to understand. Men don't have breasts because they aren't and advantage. Nipples are an advantage to females, but the mutation occurs on the autosomes, so men get them as well. But nipples aren't an overall disadvantage to males, so they remain expressed. Increased lactation is usually suppressed in males as it would be a disadvantage.

Yes, lactation is not useful but that doesn't mean the nipple has no function. The question was about the nipple and I didn't say men suckle infants.

Well, the last sentence explains this. You ask why to be removed? That is a question an evolutionist would ask! If you are designing something, you add things as needed. If you need a point of sexual stimulation on a man, you make one. And i can think of many better designs for sexual stimulation points on men, but they would have no resemblance to a female nipple (is it just coincidence that they look the same, and are suspiciously designed to have a baby suck on them?). Clearly mens nipples are to do with breast feeding in women, not sexual stimulation.

Just arguing, You think you've a better design that God's creation so give us a great one. I don' t think it is easy for you to design a new human being.

Just have less autosomes and more sex chromosomes? An autosome which is different in both sexes would just be a sex chromosome.

If you would like to design another man of your own so do it. And, we shall see if it's going to better than the current one. There is no scientific research proving that more sex chromosomes will be beneficial. It's just your imagination and fantasy. Try it and show us if it's going to be better. I bet that great problems will arise because God's design is the perfect one.

Again, you talk about changing the design, this is something an evolutionist would say. You are creating the design (and you are infinitely amazing), you would design each sex on its own, the best way you could. Obviously i cant argue against someone saying that an apparent illogical design in our eyes, is perfect in gods eyes, but that is unfalsifiable, and a pointless argument.

Yes a pointless argument, You can't prove that another design will be better. In fact you are comparing a current perfect design to a science fiction.


[/FONT]

Well, it strongly supports evolution. Phylogentics predicts that we should have similar elements in our DNA, hence be similar. But if i was the designer of two paintings, they might not be similar.


Well. DNA has to be common throughout all life, as it all evolved form a single ancestor, where DNA and The Central Dogma came about.
The Central Dogma is common thought life as, if you change any steps in it, its stops working.
There are certain elements of it that have changed, and are different in organisms, such as rDNA, and rRNA. As well as the evolution of a degenerative code etc. The basic structure of DNA (i.e. the phosphate, sugar base), hasn't changed because it works, so there is no need to change it.
I would ask, though, if we had a designer, why he didn't design the life coding system differently?

well, God gave one design because it's perfect for the job and there is no better than perfect. However, chance can't create perfectness and if you suppose chance created this great DNA it should have created before more primitive forms as well *** different compositions than are less perfect but still functioning till reaching the perfect manner. Chance can't start perfect, remember there is evolution and you are ascending ladder steps you can't jump to a supermodel from the first time. In addition, simpler forms of DNA like systems can be formed by chance as well. Why only this complicated form from first time and the only present one in living creatures, DNA and RNA.

 

[FDRC2014]

[FONT=&quot]

PART 1

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]still theories not evidence.

Oh dear, look up what a scientific theory is. This is a terrible argument based on your ignorance .

You think nipples have no function in males, but I don't think so and have explained before so there's no need to repeat. Believe what you want to believe.

I don't understand this. Read the other points in the OP, this is only one point.

Because it's an egregious fraud
DNA is so complex that random change can be creative. Mutations have proven to be more damaging than inventive. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences;(DNA) these can either have no effect, alter the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]product of a gene[/FONT][FONT=&quot], or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Drosophila melanogaster[/FONT][FONT=&quot] suggest that if a mutation changes a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]protein[/FONT][FONT=&quot] produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]( [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Well, it's a good thing you are wrong, i have studied mutations in Drosophila.
Take the example of sickle cell, this one SNP causes increased resistance to malaria. Although there are bad traits in other environments (such as high altitude). The same goes for us, lungs are good in our environment, but bad under water.

Yes, but phenotypic changes can never covert to genotypes, so the only method for the claimed evolution must be through genotypic mutations which are proven more harmful rather than beneficial. Eventually , the balance of the effect of mutations goes towards destruction rather than creativity even if some mutations are beneficial.

You oust your own argument here. Most are bad, but some are good. The fact some are good is how evolution works. Those ones that are good spread throughout the population. And as i said before, the phenotype is as a result of the genotype (+environment), i think we both agree here.

Yes, if they disuse their breasts ( if u think they had a breast) they may atrophy , however this atrophy can't be printed on genes and transferred to next generations.

I think i may have miss-used atrophy. They decrease in size over generations, as those with bigger 'whatever' and dont use them, are less fit.

Yes, lactation is not useful but that doesn't mean the nipple has no function. The question was about the nipple and I didn't say men suckle infants.

So what advantage does a nipple have to a man? Unless it's an artefact of evolution and development.

Just arguing, You think you've a better design that God's creation so give us a great one. I don' t think it is easy for you to design a new human being.

No, but i would design the man without nipples, and if you have a look at my other thread, about why a perfect god didnt create us perfect, then you will see that there are many logical imperfections in our design (when i say logical, its like walking round 3 sides of a square to get from a to b).

If you would like to design another man of your own so do it. And, we shall see if it's going to better than the current one. There is no scientific research proving that more sex chromosomes will be beneficial. It's just your imagination and fantasy. Try it and show us if it's going to be better. I bet that great problems will arise because God's design is the perfect one.

Please re-read what i was saying. You have miss understood the whole concept of evolution. This is exactly why a designer didn't design us.

Yes a pointless argument, You can't prove that another design will be better. In fact you are comparing a current perfect design to a science fiction.

True, but as scientists can explain why something is the way it is, then we don't need to. Science can explain, using evolution, why men have nipples, etc.
Also, obviously we couldn't build a better human, as we are not infinitely powerful, like the character of God is portrayed.

[/FONT]
well, God gave one design because it's perfect for the job and there is no better than perfect. However, chance can't create perfectness and if you suppose chance created this great DNA it should have created before more primitive forms as well *** different compositions than are less perfect but still functioning till reaching the perfect manner.

Anything not the best option at the time will be out competed. Or the new mutant moves to a different niche, causing speciation. Why could chance not cause beneficial mutations, you admit this yourself.

Chance can't start perfect, remember there is evolution and you are ascending ladder steps you can't jump to a supermodel from the first time. In addition, simpler forms of DNA like systems can be formed by chance as well. Why only this complicated form from first time and the only present one in living creatures, DNA and RNA.

Well, a not well functioning central dogma would be replaced by a better functioning one, obviously.
There is no scientific principle preventing something like DNA forming, then using its 'life' properties to improve itself. Also, we are far from perfect.

Did we just jump to the top of the mountain, or did we walk up it, slowly?
The former seems much more unlikely.

 

[tarekabdo12]

[FONT=&quot]You are still talking about a dead theory:
1- You can never by evolution prove how the first matter had evolved. Before the big bang and before the atoms what was there? There must have been nothing at first then something arrived. This arrival can't be attributed to evolution because evolution depends on really present matter so this needs a creator.

2-The base of your claimed non-scientific theory can't be proven by science:
First, You can never say -according to Le Chatelier principle- that original peptide bonds were formed in water because the formation of this bond causes a release of a molecule of water, which is impossible to occur in a hydrated medium which favors depolarization rather than polarization

Second, You can't assume that it was originally formed on land because the ocean would be the only protective place for amino acids from the destructive UV rays.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Third, Miller's experiment couldn't prove the origin of life on earth by chance. Miller tried to form the amino acids in the lab. However, Miller actually proved the impossibility of the formation of primordial earth's atmosphere. He used a mechanism called a "cold trap" to isolate the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. However, this mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth and without it his amino acids would have been destroyed. Furthermore, he used methane and ammonia instead of carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere of ancient earth consisted of plus water vapor at that time. In addition he didn't use oxygen which was believed to be present in the earth's atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids. All this invalidates the theory of evolution and proves that it can't find it's base till now. The only way the proteins and DNA could have been formed by is through a creator.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fourth, we reach the left handed amino acids dilemma. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The proteins in all living things are formed from left handed amino acids only despite the presence of both right-handed and left-handed forms in nature. So if the a.a s were just formed by the chance the living proteins should contain both forms which is actually not present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So how can proteins select only left-handed amino acids? If this was by a matter of coincidence only it would be really impossible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3-The claimed mechanisms of evolution:[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Mutation: multiple studies were carried upon the drosophila and none gave useful results. All the results were deformities and damages. Because mutations are mindless they can't be assumed to create a perfect system. The only claimed example is the sickle cell anemia, which is actually a disease. It represents the non-evidence based arguments carried by evolution defenders since malaria can't survive in the short-lived RBCs. Some minds may consider this an advantage, but how can this disease prove the appearance of new organs? It remains a myth. People with sickle cell disease exhibit the probability that 25% of their off springs would have fatal Sickle cell disease and another 25% getting attacked by the deadly malaria so how can this be considered an advantage? Actually the fact that mutations are random cancels the probability that they are creative because their bad effects would exceed their building actions, if they build. This is already observed in the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. No new characters appear, however devastating effects tend to occur thus actually natural selection would be against the mutant not with him. You can't assume that subjecting the body or the germ cells to radiation would improve their characters. And since the claimed transition between phyla is very complicated as random mutations can't create a completely developed organ in one generation. For a fish to reach land it must acquire many characters at a time which is logically impossible. These fish must solve the weight bearing problem by acquiring a new skeletal and muscular system. Terrestrial animals consume about 40% of their energy for bearing the weight of their bodies which is not a problem for fish at all. In addition, they must acquire a full excretory system unlike fish which excrete ammonia directly through their bodies into the surrounding water. On land the creatures must have a mechanism to preserve their body temperature since the changes in temperature occur more rapidly and vigorously than that in water. Furthermore, they must acquire a full change in their respiratory systems. All these changes are impossible from the logical point of view to have evolved by chance and suddenly. If these changes occur more gradually they won't give any advantage for natural selection and the same factor causing useful mutation as claimed is also prone to cause devastating mutation at the same time which would endanger the life of the mutant even before appearance of good traits. There is o evidence that mutations can occur in a useful pattern only, but actually all the proved mutations were found to be dangerous. Since mutations occur randomly they are mostly harmful especially in a well-formed creature as fish which are totally adapted for their environment and are in no need to change it. You can never assume that subjecting a living organism to direct radiation would be helpful to him, in fact it would lead to mutations and consequently cancers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's very unfair to consider the amphibian's metamorphosis as an example for the alleged evolution as the metamorphosis was found to be a very sophisticated genetic program within the amphibian's DNA and any error during expression of this program is fatal to the organism. This means it is not an example for acquisition of new characters by any means as its characteristic life style is already programmed in its genes like any other creature. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Natural selection is not a mechanism that can explain the acquisition of new characters, it only allows the survival of better traits, however it cannot be alleged to cause transfer between creatures since selecting – for example- the faster gazelles to live doesn't induce the appearance of giraffes. It only chooses the predomination of characters already present in the genetic pool.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]** Pleiotrpic effect of genes: most genes are responsible for information in multiple organs, thus a damage of one gene may lead to drastic effects in multiple body organs. This adds to the complexity of genes and proves that it's very hard they appeared by coincidences.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition, similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs. This proves the absurdity of evolution theory.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[tarekabdo12]

[font=&quot]
Oh dear, look up what a scientific theory is. This is a terrible argument based on your ignorance .

Yes,a theory like that of evolution based on deception and fabricating evidences as well as neglecting solid evidences disproving it to prove the new religion " atheism"

 

[FDRC2014]

[FONT=&quot]You are still talking about a dead theory:
1- You can never by evolution prove how the first matter had evolved. Before the big bang and before the atoms what was there? There must have been nothing at first then something arrived. This arrival can't be attributed to evolution because evolution depends on really present matter so this needs a creator.

Well. You are correct in saying evolution is not a theory of how life began, only on how speciation occurs from one original ancestral cell.
The origin of matter and the universe is still being hypothesised. THere are many hypothesises out there, and im no expert on the evidence. All i know is that, it is possible to have a universe without a god, there is no need for a god. But my true reason is history. Look at the ancient greeks, they used to think lightning was caused by gods, now we know its not. So why blame something we just don't know, on god; we just simply dont know.

2-The base of your claimed non-scientific theory can't be proven by science:
First, You can never say -according to Le Chatelier principle- that original peptide bonds were formed in water because the formation of this bond causes a release of a molecule of water, which is impossible to occur in a hydrated medium which favors depolarization rather than polarization

This has no overall affect. A reaction may be favoured, or not. But we have energy, from a massive nuclear reactor called the sun. Reactions occur like this in both directions. Even at a highly one sided equilibrium, there are still some of one molecule. Other than this, your statement makes no real sense. Le Chatelier's principle does not disprove evolution lol!

Second, You can't assume that it was originally formed on land because the ocean would be the only protective place for amino acids from the destructive UV rays.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Third, Miller's experiment couldn't prove the origin of life on earth by chance. Miller tried to form the amino acids in the lab. However, Miller actually proved the impossibility of the formation of primordial earth's atmosphere. He used a mechanism called a "cold trap" to isolate the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. However, this mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth and without it his amino acids would have been destroyed. Furthermore, he used methane and ammonia instead of carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere of ancient earth consisted of plus water vapor at that time. In addition he didn't use oxygen which was believed to be present in the earth's atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids. All this invalidates the theory of evolution and proves that it can't find it's base till now. The only way the proteins and DNA could have been formed by is through a creator.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fourth, we reach the left handed amino acids dilemma. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The proteins in all living things are formed from left handed amino acids only despite the presence of both right-handed and left-handed forms in nature. So if the a.a s were just formed by the chance the living proteins should contain both forms which is actually not present[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So how can proteins select only left-handed amino acids? If this was by a matter of coincidence only it would be really impossible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3-The claimed mechanisms of evolution:[/FONT]
·

Well, again, i would like to say, this is not evolution, this is abiogenesis, evolution happens after this.
And also, again, i would like to say, just because we haven't got a full theory yet, doesn't either disprove it happened, or in any way prove god. As I said before, look at the ancient greeks. Miller didn't try his experiments billions of times. It's scientifically possible, so just because he didn't manage it back then, doesn't make it impossible.
And how would the claimed mechanisms be impossible?
Although Millers experiments had some flaws, you cant say this proves god, or in any way disproves evolutions.

[FONT=&quot]Mutation: multiple studies were carried upon the drosophila and none gave useful results. All the results were deformities and damages. Because mutations are mindless they can't be assumed to create a perfect system. The only claimed example is the sickle cell anemia, which is actually a disease. It represents the non-evidence based arguments carried by evolution defenders since malaria can't survive in the short-lived RBCs. Some minds may consider this an advantage, but how can this disease prove the appearance of new organs? It remains a myth. People with sickle cell disease exhibit the probability that 25% of their off springs would have fatal Sickle cell disease and another 25% getting attacked by the deadly malaria so how can this be considered an advantage?

If sickle cell isn't an advantage to malaria ridden areas, then why is there a higher prevalence in malaria ridden areas? Well, in fact, sickle cell trait is an advantage. If 25% kids die from sickle cell, but 50% survive from malaria, when more that 25% would have died, it is advantageous.
And the advantage of a mutation, is based on the environment of the organism. So in the west, sickle cell is bad, but in malaria ridden places, it is a good trait.
Lungs are bad for a fish, gills are bad for a human, feet are bad for a fly, wings are bad for a monkey. We evolve to suite our environment.
Morphologically, we are quite evolved to our environment, so therefore any mutation is likely to be a bad one, as there is little selection pressure.

Actually the fact that mutations are random cancels the probability that they are creative because their bad effects would exceed their building actions, if they build.

The bad ones die out, the good one stick.

This is already observed in the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl. No new characters appear, however devastating effects tend to occur thus actually natural selection would be against the mutant not with him. You can't assume that subjecting the body or the germ cells to radiation would improve their characters. And since the claimed transition between phyla is very complicated as random mutations can't create a completely developed organ in one generation.

Well, you successfully showed you don't understand evolution, or mutations.
We don't need to evolve really, the selection pressures aren't strong, therefore we don't. But in some areas we do, such as lactose tolerance in africa. Nuclear radiation causes lots of mutations, though one may be beneficial (say a better memory), the rest are so bad they cause death, and so you cant see the original mutation.
There may well be mutations that cause people to be more intelligent, but as humans we have removed the selection pressure (i.e. unfit people bread as much, and i'm talking about biological fitness).
Mutations which cause significant change aren't usually SNPs, but complex mutations, or chromosomal changes. Often genes duplicate, then further mutate. Also our ability to correct mutations has increase (as as you said, mutations are generally bad).

Continued...

 

[FDRC2014]

... continued

For a fish to reach land it must acquire many characters at a time which is logically impossible. These fish must solve the weight bearing problem by acquiring a new skeletal and muscular system. Terrestrial animals consume about 40% of their energy for bearing the weight of their bodies which is not a problem for fish at all. In addition, they must acquire a full excretory system unlike fish which excrete ammonia directly through their bodies into the surrounding water. On land the creatures must have a mechanism to preserve their body temperature since the changes in temperature occur more rapidly and vigorously than that in water. Furthermore, they must acquire a full change in their respiratory systems. All these changes are impossible from the logical point of view to have evolved by chance and suddenly. If these changes occur more gradually they won't give any advantage for natural selection and the same factor causing useful mutation as claimed is also prone to cause devastating mutation at the same time which would endanger the life of the mutant even before appearance of good traits.

There are two points here, the mutation, and the advantage.
The mutation is basically like hight (as oppose to a mutation), fish with longer legs have an advantage that they can inhabit a different niche (say the benthos. There are fish with legs, now living!
Evolution is inconceivably slow. You can't imagine it, so don't even factor in time. This niche then became competitive, as the original fish bread more. Some of the fish could hop out the water for a few seconds to get extra food. Those with stronger and bigger legs, and those with a reparatory system that was more suited to out of the water could stay with the plentiful food for longer. Eventually, after their respiratory system was subtable (which can happen, over time. Remember, it's not just one gene that makes lungs). THen the same happened, the sea shore got competitive, etc.

There is o evidence that mutations can occur in a useful pattern only, but actually all the proved mutations were found to be dangerous. Since mutations occur randomly they are mostly harmful especially in a well-formed creature as fish which are totally adapted for their environment and are in no need to change it.

Competition causes the fish the need to occupy a new niche. A fish with less competition can bread more.
This type of evolution (which is actually what most of evolution is, not genetic mutations) is genetic drift, you sound ignorant to this. So its like height, if the taller you are the less successful you are, humans will get smaller. The same goes for fish and respiratory organs. THe more adapted to the air it is, the better it will survive. It goes for most traits you think of; height, neck length, eye position.

You can never assume that subjecting a living organism to direct radiation would be helpful to him, in fact it would lead to mutations and consequently cancers.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=&quot]It's very unfair to consider the amphibian's metamorphosis as an example for the alleged evolution as the metamorphosis was found to be a very sophisticated genetic program within the amphibian's DNA and any error during expression of this program is fatal to the organism. This means it is not an example for acquisition of new characters by any means as its characteristic life style is already programmed in its genes like any other creature. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
·

As i said above, it's genetic drift mainly. For the acquisition of a new organ, it is usually chromosomal mutation. So if you already have one leg, the gene is copied twice. This was the case with our trichromatic vision (we see three wavelengths, and deduce colour from that). Originally there was a gene that coded for a protein (rhodopsin) that changed isomers at one wavelength, then this gene was mutated (copied), and the copy mutated slightly, which may change one amino acid, so it reacts to a slightly different wavelength, and this repeated again. So now we can see red green and blue wavelengths.
It's not like lots of SNPs caused a whole new gene, almost identical to the other. This is how new genetic information is created.

[FONT=&quot]Natural selection is not a mechanism that can explain the acquisition of new characters, it only allows the survival of better traits, however it cannot be alleged to cause transfer between creatures since selecting – for example- the faster gazelles to live doesn't induce the appearance of giraffes. It only chooses the predomination of characters already present in the genetic pool.[/FONT]

I think i cover this above, mutations aren't just SNPs, you can have chromosomal changes (Downs syndrome is an example if you wanted one, though this is obviously a bad one, as we are adapted well).

[FONT=&quot]** Pleiotrpic effect of genes: most genes are responsible for information in multiple organs, thus a damage of one gene may lead to drastic effects in multiple body organs. This adds to the complexity of genes and proves that it's very hard they appeared by coincidences.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition, similar organs are usually governed by very different genetic (DNA) codes. Furthermore, similar genetic codes in the DNA of different creatures are often associated with completely different organs. This proves the absurdity of evolution theory.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

No it doesn't
Obviously mutations that occur in vital areas of an organism are terminal, hence why they haven't evolved. But, as i have said some are advantageous.
Another mutation that is advantageous, is lactose tolerance (we are meant to only be tolerant as babies). This mutation is an SNP and is an advantage, especially in areas such as africa, but it is still evolving into the african population, as this version of the mutation didn't arise very long ago.
Anyway, human genetic mutations are very complex, hence why most of ours are bad. But if you look at simple bacteria, antibiotic resistance can evolve very quickly in the lab. Look at MRSA (obviously this is natural evolution, in just 10 years).

 

[FDRC2014]

Yes,a theory like that of evolution based on deception and fabricating evidences as well as neglecting solid evidences disproving it to prove the new religion " atheism"

Atheism is a lack of a religion.

You don't say health is a disease!

There is hard evidence, you are just ignorant to it.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well. You are correct in saying evolution is not a theory of how life began, only on how speciation occurs from one original ancestral cell.
The origin of matter and the universe is still being hypothesised. THere are many hypothesises out there, and im no expert on the evidence. All i know is that, it is possible to have a universe without a god, there is no need for a god. But my true reason is history. Look at the ancient greeks, they used to think lightning was caused by gods, now we know its not. So why blame something we just don't know, on god; we just simply dont know.

so you are defending an idea that lacks any evidence and even no hypothesis and you say it's possible that the whole great universe has no creator. You can also say that the great computers that were designed by man have no creator and came by a matter of coincidence. The cameras, cars , etc all these may also come by coincidence because some people don't want to confess the presence of religion and the concept of a creator to follow their low vagaries. The theory of evolution itself now lacks any true solid evidence yet it has many fans. I imagine they are not dazed by Darwin's great scientific accomplishments but they want to be convinced by certain implausible ideas that feed their wishes.

the theory of evolution was destroyed by modern science after proving the great complexity of DNA, Cambrian explosion, laws of thermodynamics and the paucity of the fossil records about what Darwin claimed to have occurred, yet it still find many fans that find it their only exit to escape religion and to do what they completely want without reckoning.

This has no overall affect. A reaction may be favoured, or not. But we have energy, from a massive nuclear reactor called the sun. Reactions occur like this in both directions. Even at a highly one sided equilibrium, there are still some of one molecule. Other than this, your statement makes no real sense. Le Chatelier's principle does not disprove evolution lol!

Still Le chatelier disproves the absence of a designing creator. The sun supplies energy but it doesn't create a whole world. and that's what Miller did he gave energy but the expirement failed. Energy is not the only need for creation. It's a complex design.

Well, again, i would like to say, this is not evolution, this is abiogenesis, evolution happens after this.
And also, again, i would like to say, just because we haven't got a full theory yet, doesn't either disprove it happened, or in any way prove god. As I said before, look at the ancient greeks. Miller didn't try his experiments billions of times. It's scientifically possible, so just because he didn't manage it back then, doesn't make it impossible.
And how would the claimed mechanisms be impossible?
Although Millers experiments had some flaws, you cant say this proves god, or in any way disproves evolutions.

Experiments didn't have flaws but it used science and science proved that it is impossible for natural forces alone to create a whole world but you are standing on no base. What you don't want , you cancel it from your mind. These are truly evident scientific experiments.

Yes, it is abiogenesis but it still disproves the lack of creator and if there is a creator so there is no random evolution, there is a fascinating design.

If sickle cell isn't an advantage to malaria ridden areas, then why is there a higher prevalence in malaria ridden areas? Well, in fact, sickle cell trait is an advantage. If 25% kids die from sickle cell, but 50% survive from malaria, when more that 25% would have died, it is advantageous.
And the advantage of a mutation, is based on the environment of the organism. So in the west, sickle cell is bad, but in malaria ridden places, it is a good trait.
Lungs are bad for a fish, gills are bad for a human, feet are bad for a fly, wings are bad for a monkey. We evolve to suite our environment.
Morphologically, we are quite evolved to our environment, so therefore any mutation is likely to be a bad one, as there is little selection pressure.

Sickle cell anemia is a disease man , you close your eyes so as not to see the devastating effects of mutations and talk about sickle cell anemia as an evidence for evolution.

Well, you successfully showed you don't understand evolution, or mutations.
We don't need to evolve really, the selection pressures aren't strong, therefore we don't. But in some areas we do, such as lactose tolerance in africa. Nuclear radiation causes lots of mutations, though one may be beneficial (say a better memory), the rest are so bad they cause death, and so you cant see the original mutation.
There may well be mutations that cause people to be more intelligent, but as humans we have removed the selection pressure (i.e. unfit people bread as much, and i'm talking about biological fitness).
Mutations which cause significant change aren't usually SNPs, but complex mutations, or chromosomal changes. Often genes duplicate, then further mutate. Also our ability to correct mutations has increase (as as you said, mutations are generally bad).

At first, random selection must occur to form protein structure and DNA of one cell which is impossible totally
Then, you assume that the great organisms would be subjected to radiation will have useful mutations. Don't you think that the same radiation would cause devastating effects so the whole effects- when summed up- will be negative?
Isolated useful mutations will never occur in a complex creature and the net effect of mutation will be a drawback rather than an advantage. This is asserted by what we see in front of our eyes from the effects of mutations and radiation.

 

[camanintx]

so you are defending an idea that lacks any evidence and even no hypothesis and you say it's possible that the whole great universe has no creator. You can also say that the great computers that were designed by man have no creator and came by a matter of coincidence. The cameras, cars , etc all these may also come by coincidence because some people don't want to confess the presence of religion and the concept of a creator to follow their low vagaries.

Since no one suggests that computers, cars or cameras are capable of self replication and evolution, what is your point? The idea that everything in this universe can arise through natural processes is hardly lacking evidence. As for the question of what may have ultimately started it all, that is a philosophical question outside the realm of science.

the theory of evolution was destroyed by modern science after proving the great complexity of DNA, Cambrian explosion, laws of thermodynamics and the paucity of the fossil records about what Darwin claimed to have occurred, yet it still find many fans that find it their only exit to escape religion and to do what they completely want without reckoning.

The fact that an overwhelming majority of those who support evolution are also religious would argue against this theory. Your assumption that people who are irreligious do so to avoid responsibility would also be unfounded. Many of the most secular nations are also the most law abiding.

Sickle cell anemia is a disease man , you close your eyes so as not to see the devastating effects of mutations and talk about sickle cell anemia as an evidence for evolution.

While sickle cell anemia is a disease, the trait for it (which many people carry without even knowing it) is what protects one from malaria. Since in some environments the odds of getting the disease are lower than the odds of getting malaria, the trait is most definitely beneficial.

At first, random selection must occur to form protein structure and DNA of one cell which is impossible totally
Then, you assume that the great organisms would be subjected to radiation will have useful mutations. Don't you think that the same radiation would cause devastating effects so the whole effects- when summed up- will be negative?
Isolated useful mutations will never occur in a complex creature and the net effect of mutation will be a drawback rather than an advantage. This is asserted by what we see in front of our eyes from the effects of mutations and radiation.

Funny how you can claim to know the odds of something which you don't appear to understand.

 

[FDRC2014]

so you are defending an idea that lacks any evidence and even no hypothesis and you say it's possible that the whole great universe has no creator.

You are mixing two things here, evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is still under research, and i will back whatever scientific theory research presents. At the moment, there are a few ideas, which some limited evidence. I just simply say, we don't know. But there is no reason for it to require a god. THere is no evidence for a god. Science just doesn't contemplate one.

You can also say that the great computers that were designed by man have no creator and came by a matter of coincidence. The cameras, cars , etc all these may also come by coincidence because some people don't want to confess the presence of religion and the concept of a creator to follow their low vagaries. The theory of evolution itself now lacks any true solid evidence yet it has many fans. I imagine they are not dazed by Darwin's great scientific accomplishments but they want to be convinced by certain implausible ideas that feed their wishes.the theory of evolution was destroyed by modern science after proving the great complexity of DNA, Cambrian explosion, laws of thermodynamics and the paucity of the fossil records about what Darwin claimed to have occurred, yet it still find many fans that find it their only exit to escape religion and to do what they completely want without reckoning.

The complexity of something doesn't indicate if it was designed or not. I can design something simple, it's still designed. But lets say, the formation of a diamond is quite complex (in many respects), only recently have we been able to do it. Life is obviously complex, but DNA, the Cambrian explosion, or thermodynamics (which you clearly don't understand), don't contradict evolution in any way. Evolution happens at different rates, i would be surprised if there wasn't a cambrian explosion. Thermodynamics doesn't prevent life, we have a giant nuclear reactor powering life, therefore it doesn't. There is nothing in the scientific community that disproves evolution.
If you throw a box of marbles on the floor 100bn times, i would be surprised if it didn't make the face of jesus.

Still Le chatelier disproves the absence of a designing creator. The sun supplies energy but it doesn't create a whole world. and that's what Miller did he gave energy but the expirement failed. Energy is not the only need for creation. It's a complex design.

No it doesn't! Millers experiments created amino acids and other basic life components. Through reactions in lighting. The energy was provided here (obviously lightning's energy comes from the sun). I don't understand how you say it doesnt create the world, this was created with gravity, look up the formation of the earth. I don't think you understand this.

Experiments didn't have flaws but it used science and science proved that it is impossible for natural forces alone to create a whole world but you are standing on no base. What you don't want , you cancel it from your mind. These are truly evident scientific experiments.

I'm not sure what your getting at here, i suggest you provide some scientific papers for me to look at, because i think you're just making things up. Why can't natural forces create the world, physicists have pondered this for a long time. Anyway, this isn't evolution. Besides, of course natural forces can create the chemicals of life, there is no physics preventing it - as chemicals of life are created every day form elements, in our body.

Yes, it is abiogenesis but it still disproves the lack of creator and if there is a creator so there is no random evolution, there is a fascinating design.

Err, NO.
It doesn't disprove anything.

Sickle cell anemia is a disease man , you close your eyes so as not to see the devastating effects of mutations and talk about sickle cell anemia as an evidence for evolution.

It is a disease to us, in the west. WHY do you think, that there is a higher prevalence in malaria ridden areas. It is a fact. Read what I put before, with the percentages etc.

At first, random selection must occur to form protein structure and DNA of one cell which is impossible totally

Why? water forms naturally, various other complex molecules form naturally, why can't DNA, or amino acids?

Then, you assume that the great organisms would be subjected to radiation will have useful mutations. Don't you think that the same radiation would cause devastating effects so the whole effects- when summed up- will be negative?

No i don't, you didn't read what i wrote. Radiation causes lots of SNPs, genetic drift and gene cloning is more relevant. i deal with this in a whole paragraph above, just read it.

Isolated useful mutations will never occur in a complex creature and the net effect of mutation will be a drawback rather than an advantage. This is asserted by what we see in front of our eyes from the effects of mutations and radiation.

Again, you just ignored what i put before. Mutations do occur on their own, and are advantageous, just read it. Im not repeating myself.
I suggest you read the whole thing again, you just repeated the same questions. Look for the part where you talk about nuclear disasters.