Why male and female?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is that so? What is this evolutionary source? What are these distinct patterns of imperfections?

The Instructor

Evolution being a totally unintelligent process, we should EXPECT it to often produce stupid imperfections.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110210125604AAI30hGAnd
that is exactly what we observe in living things:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
“....EXAMPLES

The human reproductive system includes the following:

In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[4]

Other examples of "poor design" include:

Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,[5] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case (,[1] p. 328).
The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.
Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO).[6] Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.[7]
In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.[4]
Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.
The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.[4]
The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches (,[1] p. 326).
The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease.
Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The structure of humans' eyes (as well as those of all mammals). The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.[8][9]
The loss of tetrachromatic vision by mammals as compared to other tetrapods.
The enzyme RuBisCO has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme,[10] as it is inhibited by oxygen, has a very slow turnover and is not saturated at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The enzyme is inhibited as it unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen, with oxygen acting as an competitive enzyme inhibitor. However, RuBisCO remains the key enzyme in carbon fixation, and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.[11]
The enzyme nitrogenase actually preferentially binds with acetylene over di-nitrogen, despite its being the key enzyme used in nitrogen fixation in many bacteria and archaea.
The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but rather indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate. Oxygenless asphyxiation in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere has been proposed as a humane method of execution that exploits this "oversight".
Sturdy but heavy bones, suited for non-flight, occurring in animals like bats. Or, on the converse: unstable, light, hollow bones, suited for flight, occurring in birds like penguins and ostriches, which cannot fly.
Various vestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution says the ancestor of whales lived on land) or the third molar - or 'wisdom teeth' - in humans (whereas some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar).
Turritopsis nutricula and Hydra genus have biological immortality, but most animals do not.
Many species have strong instincts to behave in response to a certain stimulus. Natural selection can leave animals behaving in detrimental ways when they encounter supernormal stimuli - like a moth flying into a flame.
Plants are green and not black, even though black plants would absorb more light energy.
Female orgasm is usually produced only by the direct stimulation of the clitoris. The clitoris is not typically stimulated during sexual intercourse.
...”

Is that enough evidence for you?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Either evolution can stand on its own or it can't.

It can stand perfectly well on its own. So far you have not been able to substantiate any of your claims that there are problems with the theory of evolution. This leads me to believe that you are making up the claims in order to justify your beliefs. If you disagree, then please explain why you stopped accepting the theory of evolution as factual. Give specific reasons. If I then convince you that your reasons are not valid, will you then accept the theory of evolution is valid?

Originally posted by humy

if God wouldn't guild evolution

what?

You seem to want to accept or reject design
due to religion

No, science is NOT religion

Well if things can be designed and have imperfections ….

Are you talking about designed by humans or designed by God here?
[quote] why do you dismiss design due t ...[text shortened]... n design with imperfections esp with the crappy buggy Microsoft software I have on my computer.

You have made claims you accept what the evidence shows you, except
when it comes to design you reject that because what it may show you!
If evidence speaks to design that is one thing, to say that it must be God
that is another. It is no different with people who claim evolution must
have someone directing it! What does it matter if evidence shows design or
evolution neither means God did it, that is another discussion.

I hope you see your bias, because without a doubt you have it big time!

God for us is faith, that does not mean He isn't real, but it means that we
will NEVER be able to through science prove or disprove God. We should be
able to see what is before us and attempt to discover what best explains it
with the limitations we have.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
Evolution being a totally unintelligent process, we should EXPECT it to often produce stupid imperfections.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110210125604AAI30hGAnd
that is exactly what we observe in living things:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen ...[text shortened]... lly stimulated during sexual intercourse.
...”

Is that enough evidence for you?

No I think this is just bias at work, you see flaws and due to it you try to
connect the dots to prove your views. We know things wear out, we know
that errors cause issues in very complex or simple systems over time things
break down. Seeing issues does not mean that the design that started life
has not started wearing out and breaking down due to a cause. Seeing
design features where you'd do something a little different does not mean
your way is best, it could be overtime if your so called design upgrades
would cause other features to go bad. You are not showing evidence that
proves anything you are only showing your bias to see what you want to see.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I think this is just bias at work, you see flaws and due to it you try to
connect the dots to prove your views. We know things wear out, we know
that errors cause issues in very complex or simple systems over time things
break down. Seeing issues does not mean that the design that started life
has not started wearing out and breaking down due to a ca idence that
proves anything you are only showing your bias to see what you want to see.
Kelly

you see flaws and due to it you try to
connect the dots to prove your views.

You mean I see evidence that proves the theory? Yes. So what is the point you are making here?

Seeing
design features where you'd do something a little different does not mean
your way is best,

I didn't say my way is 'best'. What has this got to do with apparent flaws in the anatomy of living things that we see?

We know things wear out, we know
that errors cause issues in very complex or simple systems over time things
break down. Seeing issues does not mean that the design that started life
has not started wearing out and breaking down due to a cause.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that your 'God' made all living things with a perfect design and then they later lost that perfect design over the course of just a few thousand years? If so, why would this God make perfection only to allow many flaws in his good design rapidly develop over just a few thousand years? And what caused such massive flaws to develop in just a few thousand years! Certainly evolution could not explain how such massive imperfection could have developed from perfect design! Natural selection would simply continuously and relentlessly forever keep weed-out any bad mutations from the genome of each species (like it does anyway regardless of whether life was intelligently designed) thus if it had started off with a perfect 'design' then it should stay that way!

You are not showing evidence that
proves anything

as usual, you just ignore the evidence given for you.
I just showed you the evidence that DOES prove something!
Here it is yet again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
“....EXAMPLES ….(see what it says for yourself)...”

how on earth does that NOT prove that' IF those things were intelligently 'designed' then there are flaws in that design that we can see TODAY?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I think this is just bias at work, you see flaws and due to it you try to
connect the dots to prove your views. We know things wear out, we know
that errors cause issues in very complex or simple systems over time things
break down. Seeing issues does not mean that the design that started life
has not started wearing out and breaking down due to a ca ...[text shortened]... idence that
proves anything you are only showing your bias to see what you want to see.
Kelly

By what mechanism would "things break down"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By what mechanism would "things break down"?

yes, he is extremely vague about that. What vague language! "things break down"? -which "things"? living things? if so, in this context, in what way would living things "break down" exactly? if not living things but dead things, then what relevance does this have with the existence of flaws in the anatomy of living things which was, after all, what we were talking about?

he also said "We know things wear out". Again, extremely vague language! Again, does "things" refer to living things or dead things? (or both to confuse the two so that the two are treated identically?) if living things, is he implying that the anatomy of living things "wear out" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean!) and this 'explains' the flaws we see in the anatomy living things? if not living things, then, again, what has this got to do with the existence of flaws in the anatomy of living things? -all extremely unclear.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By what mechanism would "things break down"?

Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

Murphy's laws:

1.Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
2.Anything that cannot go wrong will anyway.

http://www.opundo.com/murphyslaws.htm

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

Murphy's laws:

1.Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
2.Anything that cannot go wrong will anyway.

http://www.opundo.com/murphyslaws.htm

The Instructor

and, if that is what Kelly meant by how "things break down", how would that explain the flaws we see in the anatomy of living things today? (if that is not what he meant, then that means it is irrelevant anyway) The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with it because that is about thermodynamic disorder increasing which has nothing to do with flaws in anatomy and Murphy's law is not part science and both of Murphy's laws, at least as how you have defined them here, are simply wrong because the first one is not ALWAYS true (I could have been run over by a bus yesterday; but I wasn't thus disproving Murphy's first law) and the second one is a contradiction.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It can stand perfectly well on its own. So far you have not been able to substantiate any of your claims that there are problems with the theory of evolution. This leads me to believe that you are making up the claims in order to justify your beliefs. If you disagree, then please explain why you stopped accepting the theory of evolution as factual. Give s ...[text shortened]... ince you that your reasons are not valid, will you then accept the theory of evolution is valid?

I'll give you one example. Punctuated Equilibrium.

No one punched a hole in evolution theory for PE to be needed as another theory to patch that hole. Evolutionists recognised this was a hole in evolution they needed to patch over with another theory. This "hole" is all of the apparent and unexplainable gaps in the fossil record.

These gaps represent the transitional species we should be finding, but haven't found. The only evidence I've seen that PE actually happened is the claim that it explains why those gaps apparently exist... in other words, there is no evidence of PE happening nor evidence to demonstrate it could have happened. The "evidence" for PE is the need to bridge those gaps.

Evolutionists explain this apparent lack of evidence for PE by saying PE happened so rapidly it couldn't have laid down enough fossil evidence for us to find, and this is why there are gaps in the fossil record. This mean PE doesn't need to be proven because it can't be proven, and we can take it on faith because it patches a hole in evolution theory. I don't think so. IMO this is an example of self serving circular reasoning with nothing to back it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It can stand perfectly well on its own. So far you have not been able to substantiate any of your claims that there are problems with the theory of evolution. This leads me to believe that you are making up the claims in order to justify your beliefs. If you disagree, then please explain why you stopped accepting the theory of evolution as factual. Give s ...[text shortened]... ince you that your reasons are not valid, will you then accept the theory of evolution is valid?

You're talking like the people who go door to door and try convincing folks to believe in their religion. I'm not surprised to learn Dean Kenyon is a creationist. He didn't the leave the Church of Evolution, he was driven away. He was excommunicated for making heretical remarks and for questioning particular aspects of Evolution. It's astounding to me that any of you can call religionists arrogant when your own arrogance is on display 24/7.

Instead of trying to convince me evolution is true you say "This leads me to believe that you are making up the claims in order to justify your beliefs." I wasn't the one who made up PE to justify claims made by Evolutionists, so you can go knocking on other doors until you find someone ignorant enough to buy into your claims. I'm done with your church, you'll be getting no more tithes from me.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'll give you one example. Punctuated Equilibrium.

No one punched a hole in evolution theory for PE to be needed as another theory to patch that hole. Evolutionists recognised this was a hole in evolution they needed to patch over with another theory. This "hole" is all of the apparent and unexplainable gaps in the fossil record.

These gaps represen IMO this is an example of self serving circular reasoning with nothing to back it up.

the theory of evolution has been modified to fit with the evidence. That is just the way real good science always works; the theory is changed to fit the evidence rather the evidence being changed to fit the theory. There was a hole in the original old form of the theory that simplistically assumed that species are constantly changing at the same rate but not in the new modified modern form of evolution theory which says this rate of evolutionary change can and does sometimes vary wildly with long lulls where not much change happens for long periods that are punctuated by relativity short periods of rapid change usually due to sudden changes in environment esp due to drastic changes in habitat or world climate.
The fact that the theory evolves to accommodate new evidence is a STRENGTH and NOT a weakness of the theory.
Thus your criticism of the theory for adapting to the evidence is invalid.

There are always expected to be gaps in the fossil record we know of because animals and plants don't fossilize unless the conditions are just right for that and thus many of them would inevitably not have been fossilized and we wouldn't be expected to find all those that have been fossilized because most wouldn't be somewhere on or very near the surface of the ground where we got a reasonable chance to spot them. So your criticism of there being gaps is also invalid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

Murphy's laws:

1.Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
2.Anything that cannot go wrong will anyway.

http://www.opundo.com/murphyslaws.htm

The Instructor

As a physicist I know the Second Law pretty well, but I don't see how it leads to "things breaking down". Can you be more specific?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As a physicist I know the Second Law pretty well, but I don't see how it leads to "things breaking down". Can you be more specific?

He can't because he doesn't understand physics and doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just messing with us.

Originally posted by humy
and, if that is what Kelly meant by how "things break down", how would that explain the flaws we see in the anatomy of living things today? (if that is not what he meant, then that means it is irrelevant anyway) The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with it because that is about thermodynamic disorder increasing which has nothing to do with ...[text shortened]... y; but I wasn't thus disproving Murphy's first law) and the second one is a contradiction.

You of little faith.

The Instructor