27 Jun 05
Evolution is a broad term that we all think we understand but, like chess the more you play it the more you see.
The current view of evolution is based around 'survival of the fittest'.
This would imply that those with a genetic advantage from DNA
mutation would have more chance of finding a mate.
I don't think this goes far enough to explain sex. I think there is an evolved understanding of beauty. Both form and function coming into play for females (or males) to select a partner not just on their current standing but what they represent. We can then proceed to draw parallels between those elements of the mind that have evolved to select and the functions we have today that they have selected for.
27 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckLet me ask you this if survival of the fittest actually means something
Evolution is a broad term that we all think we understand but, like chess the more you play it the more you see.
The current view of evolution is based around 'survival of the fittest'.
This would imply that those with a genetic adva ...[text shortened]... elect and the functions we have today that they have selected for.
real. Why would two sexes be better than something that only required
one? Assuming that life started from one cell that was able to move
on to multi cell creatures, at some point male and female started to
form, but what advantage was there when before all any creature had
to do was divide and multiply, now two are required to get together to
form off spring?
Then we have to think about all the various changes that would be
required that must compliment the males that have to take place in
the females, then all the changes within the males that must
compliment the females. These changes have to happen at the same
time, in the same area, at the same time, while the males and
females are near each other. I guess this is also true of all the
various systems within each sex that must also work simultaneously
with other systems to function within each species.
It is difficult for me to fathom the odds of all of this! Think about
everything that would have to be required to be just right, all the
chemicals, temperatures, environment, food supply, and so on. Not
only would they have to change just right they would have to do so
all the while working together. With these changes all the while
improving life as it goes through time not ending it all by getting it
wrong, so that everything falls apart instead of improving it.
Kelly
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayTwo sexes allow for combination of beneficial genes. For example, suppose you had organism A and organism B. Organism A evolves resistance to some toxin in the environment, and organism B evolves the ability to synthesize some vitamin for which the supply becomes much less available than before. Sexual reproduction allows for the production of an organism that has both traits and which is therefore more able to survive and reproduce in general.
Let me ask you this if survival of the fittest actually means something
real. Why would two sexes be better than something that only required
one? Assuming that life started from one cell that was able to move
on to multi cell creatures, at some point male and female started to
form, but what advantage was there when before all any creature had
to do w ...[text shortened]... ding it all by getting it
wrong, so that everything falls apart instead of improving it.
Kelly
Your idea that males and females as they exist today need to exist in order for sexual reproduction to take place is misplaced. More likely hermaphrodites evolved which had both options before two fully separate sexes did. This allows sexual reproduction without two different sexes.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree that it is a terrific, incredible coincidence for all the things to have happened 'just so'. But if any one of those coincidences had not happened we would either not be here or unable to think/talk about it. I think we should all agree from the bulk of evidence that evolution is real. But we should also not forget that a lot takes place outside of logic... We live in a universe that is entagled with our consciousness and who's to say a few corners weren't cut when nobody was looking to get us to where we are.
Let me ask you this if survival of the fittest actually means something
real. Why would two sexes be better than something that only required
one? Assuming that life started from one cell that was able to move
on to multi cell creatures, at some point male and female started to
form, but what advantage was there when before all any creature had
to do w ...[text shortened]... ding it all by getting it
wrong, so that everything falls apart instead of improving it.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckHow do you know they were "coincidences?" That is the point, as
I agree that it is a terrific, incredible coincidence for all the things to have happened 'just so'. But if any one of those coincidences had not happened we would either not be here or unable to think/talk about it. I think we should all agree from the bulk of evidence that evolution is real. But we should also not forget that a lot takes place outside o ...[text shortened]... nd who's to say a few corners weren't cut when nobody was looking to get us to where we are.
far as the evidence goes, we just see what we see and what we
say about it is our opinions which is not necessarily the way it really
came about.
Kelly
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou seem to miss my point, at one point in time if evolution is
Two sexes allow for combination of beneficial genes. For example, suppose you had organism A and organism B. Organism A evolves resistance to some toxin in the environment, and organism B evolves the ability to synthesize some vitamin for which the supply becomes much less available than before. Sexual reproduction allows for the production of an o ...[text shortened]... fore two fully separate sexes did. This allows sexual reproduction without two different sexes.
correct there weren’t any sexes, Evolution is telling us that over
time everything that makes one sex female started coming
into being through mutations within DNA, all the while either
before, during, or after something else was occurring making
males. Now not only did these changes occur, but they required
them to come back together to multiply. These changes you’re
talking about do indeed talk about advantages with sexes, but not
about the why or how they happened, you are speaking about the
end product.
Kelly
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's a lot to be said for 'seeing what we see' in the absence of any other information then we should feel confident putting the tag 'reality' on it or proceed to go mm..mm..m..mad.
How do you know they were "coincidences?" That is the point, as
far as the evidence goes, we just see what we see and what we
say about it is our opinions which is not necessarily the way it really
came about.
Kelly
The best analogy I can think of is this. Imagine you are a tourist in Hollywood and accidently stumble onto a film set. One where just the fronts of buildings have been made and not the backs. You may walk down this street, taking in the sights and then proceed back to a 'normal' street. Let's say you never knew it happened.
For all intensive purposes you just walked down two ordinary streets but 'really' you walked through a filmset.
My point is that it doesn't matter if we are walking through a world of divine construct or simply a melting pot of chance. To all intensive purposes it's the same thing.
One day we may lean against a wall that will fall but there's not much point speculating until this happens.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by oddbobI always thought the phrase was "for all intents and purposes".
There's a lot to be said for 'seeing what we see' in the absence of any other information then we should feel confident putting the tag 'reality' on it or proceed to go mm..mm..m..mad.
The best analogy I can think of is this. Imagine you are a tourist in Hollywood and accidently stumble onto a film set. One where just the fronts of buildings have been ...[text shortened]... y lean against a wall that will fall but there's not much point speculating until this happens.
29 Jun 05
Originally posted by oddbobTrue, but the issue is that all things are defined by how everything
There's a lot to be said for 'seeing what we see' in the absence of any other information then we should feel confident putting the tag 'reality' on it or proceed to go mm..mm..m..mad.
The best analogy I can think of is this. Imagine you are a tourist in Hollywood and accidently stumble onto a film set. One where just the fronts of buildings have been ...[text shortened]... y lean against a wall that will fall but there's not much point speculating until this happens.
started. If the universe was started by God, everything takes on one
meaning, and if everything started without God, everything takes
on another meaning, or everything becomes meaningless. We are
still left with, we only see what we see, but beyond that is there
something else, or someone else? I believe there is, others do not.
Kelly
05 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayGod is defined by 'he who is'. Now none of us are crazy enough to think he's got a beard and white flannel dressing gown. 'He' is used as a term to define an entity. Now given that we exist (debatable) this leads us to conclude that 'God is'.
True, but the issue is that all things are defined by how everything
started. If the universe was started by God, everything takes on one
meaning, and if everything started without God, everything takes
on another meaning, or everything becomes meaningless. We are
still left with, we only see what we see, but beyond that is there
something else, or someone else? I believe there is, others do not.
Kelly
The extent of his compassion, wisdom and intent just tend to get mashed up by religion into a control mechanism. The irony is this very control leads to our eventual definition as humans and societies. So this could lead us to say 'man created man' or that Gods intentions are manifested by the actions of religion.
So did God create man or did man create God?