Welcome to Gaia! ::

Over the years i have been in many debates over the theory and was woundering what you think and whats your proof, i have my answer and explaination, and will post it if i feel needed to depending on the answers to this debate, now i want yours
yes or no
and explain

I am going to move this to the Discussion subforum. Post when you've seen this, and then I'll move it.

I really would love to see all of this "proof" that all of you seem to be so smug about.

Your questions are warranted, and I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

First of all, sexual reproduction is a useful mechanism for variation among species. As you said yourself, asexual reproduction results in very similar organisms. Similarity is not a good thing in the wild. If a global disaster ocurrs that affects that particular type of organism with no variety, the chances of enough of that organism surviving are significantly lowered.

Now, the resulting of symbiotic relationships like sexual reproduction have been supported by theories, the most well-known having been written by a researcher by the name of Lynn Margulis relatively recently. Basically, sexual reproduction was non-existent until Eukaryotes came into the picture. Eukaryotes were developed by symbiotic relationships between various Prokaryotes. Many of the organelles within our own cells used to be cells in their own right. The mitochondria, for example. Sexual reproduction started as simple mixing genes within colonies of eukaryotic cells for greater variety. After hundreds of millions of years, this advanteage eventually prevailed into the sexual reproduction we see today.

Certain species of sponges still display the archaic form of "sexual reproduction" today.

Seconded! I believe in evolution as well.

ok, first how did the eukaryotes get there, by what realationships and if a single celled organism, that reproduces through an asexual reproduction that doesnt have a se b/c the reproduction does not requre a sex part, preform a sexual reproduction?
any way talk to any math professor who knows what their talking about, with probability, and they will tell you that the probability of prokaryotes turning in to eukaryotes is highly unprobable and the time it would take for one ameba to turn into a human would take many more years than science gives it.

also adding onto that we have never observed an ameba or any other single celled organism turing into a human or any other complex organism. science is suppose to be obervational, right, well how can you even consider something like macro-evolution as fact or theory if it hasnt been observed.

cells are not programed to mutate if they were programed to mutate by natural means then our bodies would have no problem dealing with cancer.

The first organism that would qualify as a "eukaryote" was born from a parent very very close to being a eukaryote. In fact, we probably would have considered its ancestors from aeons ago to have been mutated eukaryotes, since we are probably not sophisticated enough to see the difference.


I'm afraid I'm going to need you to give me some context here. What are you talking about?


Excuse my illiteracy, but what on earth is a "se"?

Let me try to explain this again. First of all, as far as I know there is no such thing as a sexually reproducing single-celled organism. I believe that only multi-cellular organisms can perform sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong, which is perfectly possible.

Second of all, the first thing that we would have considered "sex" only came after a very long line of ancestors that exchanged genes in a very sex-like and symbiotic manner. After millions of years of slowly widening this trait of containing slightly different genetic makeups and then mixing them with each other, different sexes came about and with it sex.

I don't think I'm making myself clear. Sex didn't come about as a reslt of a single mutation from one generation to another. Sex only ocurred after millions of years of that branch of the tree using a sex-like mechanism to mix genes between each other for more diverse offspring.


Now here, I would normally just retort with something along the lines of,"Talk with any math professor who knows what they're talking about and they will tell you that the probability of an invisible, all-powerful man coming out of nowhere and creating everything in seven days and he will tell you that it is highly improbable."

But since you're obviously trying, I'll try to remain on the defensive for once.

I would like to see a paper done by a collaboration of scientists that shows me the probability of eukaryotes being developed and how long it would take. But since something like that is nearly impossible to figure out, I think you'll be searching the internet for awhile.

Until then, I think I can rest my case by telling you that dogs have only been bred for around 10,000 years. Look at their variety. Life has been around about 250,000 times that.


Because a very large amount of evidence for it has been observed. For instance, what you refer to as "micro-evolution".


Au contraire, there actually are mechanisms in cellular reproduction and meiosis that encourage a small amount of mistakes and therefore a wider variety of genetic code.

I don't see how mutations would help the body fight cancer, though. confused Care to explain?

For a science student, you have a surprising lack of knowledge of the scientific process. Evolution isn't "just a theory". If you somehow think that laws are more reputable than theories, you are sorely mistaken. Gravity is a "only called a theory", as well. Even by non-believing scientists.


You are right. They are still dogs and they are still humans. However, they are different subpecies of dogs and different subspecies of humans.



Actually, it has been widely acknowledged that the earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old since a study led by C.C. Patterson in 1956. That's over 50 years ago.


And this is one of the main things that separates science from religion. Science changes as more and more facts are collected. If one theory is proven to be flawed, it is scrapped and new theories are pondered.

Religion, on the other hand, keeps its hypothesis. It's dogma, not researched data. Christians have never changed the Bible because most of them believe the Bible to be infallible. The Bible isn't changed because people like you refuse to accept modern beliefs and instead choose to defend an outdated book. Now, I'm not saying everything in the Bible is flawed. But a lot of it is, and it hasn't been edited because Christians would rather defend the Bible than change it.


Please do. And make sure you include references.