I love speed :-P
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
quote:
Originally posted by carcentric
The place where evolution theory fails me is the point in history at which single sex organisms became separate sex organisms. Consider, for
example:
1) Using the logic of "survival of the fittest," what set of conditions would favor two sexes over self-replication?
2) If the first single-sex organisms were mutations, how likely is it that one could find an opposite-sex mutant within its lifetime with which to
reproduce?
3) If your "nature" is to reproduce without any other organism, what would be your reaction to some queer (in the non-gay sense)
organism wanting to "sex you up?"
Good thing the two sex model emerged before people were invented - I don't think most would go for it if it weren't already the norm.
If you can answer these babies then you know which came first, The Chicken OR The Egg?
Enjoy. 72 Days to Go.
i no, i no, i no 
the egg came 1st
this is because there was something like but not quite a chicken which layed an egg, this was then changed ie radiation etc which then hatched and was
a chicken
copy right of Philip Moreton
[Edited on 11/11/2004 by I love speed :-P]
Don't Steal
The Government doesn’t like the competition
|
|
|
|
|
MikeP
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 03:18 PM |
|
|
At the risk of being ridiculed for not appreciating the joke...
One *theory* of sexual reproduction is that it emerged from the habit of some organisms eating others (hehehe, echos of "Quest for Fire"
and/or virus like organisms infecting others - sort of a symbiotic thing. The advantage being that recombining working genes and filtering them
through survival of the fittest is faster for adaption to changing conditions than waiting for random mutations. There are intermediate steps like
hermaphroditic oganisms - worms and such, but sure, there will always be gaps and speculation.
There's some evidence of this today (if I understand it correctly) in mitochondrial DNA and in the virii that pick up and incorporate bits of
DNA leftovers they find, allowing them to do things like "learn" different infection techniques or resistance, or jump species.
As too what was before the big bang, what caused it, what's outside of space, I think special relatively proved that "you can't get
there from here" so it doesn't much matter  . There are some interesting theories, but they all can retrograde into "but what was
before that". I must say I'm more fascinated by theories that go a little further, have a chance of being further substantiated by other
means (or not), or just say "we don't know" over the answer of "God did it, and he moves in mysterious ways"...
|
|
|
Noodle
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
We can have no knowledge of God.
The fact that there is theodicy puts the lie the benevolent paternal God theory.
I like the Bhuddists: "All life is suffering." As Jazz and the Plastic Population used to say "The only way is up!"
Cheers,
Neil
Your sort make me sick
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 11/11/04 at 05:05 PM |
|
|
And they University Professors thousands for this sort of theological debate!
Enjoy. 72 Days to Go.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
