Why male and female?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am suggesting that you do not have even the most basic idea about the probabilities involved, and that if it was a street you would be wise to not cross. There may be a billion more cars going past than you think.
You said the probability was in the same ball park as hitting Pluto. I want you to work out what the pall park figure for hitting Pluto is. ...[text shortened]... of sea water are there in the sea? Come on, lets have a rough estimate? Even an instinctive one?

Since you have a much better idea of what the probabilities are, then perhaps you should be telling me. Your first post to me was to ask if I intend to simply toss something in and then run away. IYO what is the difference between running away and running in circles?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying because a mammoth was found with blood inside not deteriorated that must be proof the Earth is only 6000 years old? Or Dino's for that matter?

No, I'm saying a mammoth was found whose meat and blood is relatively fresh after thousands of years. And the inside of a dinos bone reveals fleshy parts and blood that turns red when exposed to the air after how many years... you tell me how many years that dino might have been buried. Any questions I might have are implied in those statements. If you have no problem believing this level of preservation is even possible after that much time, especially for the dino, then no question for you is implied.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Since you have a much better idea of what the probabilities are, then perhaps you should be telling me. Your first post to me was to ask if I intend to simply toss something in and then run away. IYO what is the difference between running away and running in circles?

I what way am I running in circles? I am pointing out that the amount of genetic activity that goes on in life is astronomic in proportions and you don't seem to realize it. You claim to have an intuition about how improbable it is, yet you have no idea what the probabilities actually are. I don't know the probabilities either, but I am sure that they are more favorable than you think.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I'm saying a mammoth was found whose meat and blood is relatively fresh after thousands of years. And the inside of a dinos bone reveals fleshy parts and blood that turns red when exposed to the air after how many years... you tell me how many years that dino might have been buried. Any questions I might have are implied in those statements. If you ha ...[text shortened]... en possible after that much time, especially for the dino, then no question for you is implied.

References for the dinos?
The mammoths is not surprising as they were in permafrost (ice).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I what way am I running in circles? I am pointing out that the amount of genetic activity that goes on in life is astronomic in proportions and you don't seem to realize it. You claim to have an intuition about how improbable it is, yet you have no idea what the probabilities actually are. I don't know the probabilities either, but I am sure that they are more favorable than you think.

And I'm sure they are not as favorable as you believe. If as you say you don't know the probabilities either, then apparently we are both equally clueless... unless that is not what you meant. The amount of life or genetic activity is not proof of how that life got here, so I have to assume your assumption of what I don't realise must be based on something else... unless I'm wrong about that too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
References for the dinos?
The mammoths is not surprising as they were in permafrost (ice).

You don't remember reading about the dino bone? It happened a few years ago, but I shouldn't have a problem finding it. There is this thing called Google that makes searching for news stories very easy. I think it's called a search engine.

Anyway, what was found inside a dino bone was an accidental discovery. The bone was so large and heavy they needed heavy equipment for lifting it. Bones aren't normally broken when being excavated, so discovering what the inside revealed was completely by accident.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I what way am I running in circles? I am pointing out that the amount of genetic activity that goes on in life is astronomic in proportions and you don't seem to realize it. You claim to have an intuition about how improbable it is, yet you have no idea what the probabilities actually are. I don't know the probabilities either, but I am sure that they are more favorable than you think.

I didn't say you were running in circles. You suggested I imagine moving forever west along the surface of the earth, so it seems to appear you would like to see me moving in circles. I'd rather stay on topic if that's okay with you. Running circles around the earth sounds like a lot of hard work. I've worked hard almost all my life, but I'm retired now and don't have to work hard at anything... so I'm going to pass on the circling the earth challenge.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't say you were running in circles. You suggested I imagine moving forever west along the surface of the earth, so it seems to appear you would like to see me moving in circles. I'd rather stay on topic if that's okay with you. Running circles around the earth sounds like a lot of hard work. I've worked hard almost all my life, but I'm retired now a ...[text shortened]... ave to work hard at anything... so I'm going to pass on the circling the earth challenge.

I didn't realize you were referencing the other thread. Then you ask me to stay on topic?

Originally posted by lemon lime
And I'm sure they are not as favorable as you believe. If as you say you don't know the probabilities either, then apparently we are both equally clueless... unless that is not what you meant. The amount of life or genetic activity is not proof of how that life got here, so I have to assume your assumption of what I don't realise must be based on something else... unless I'm wrong about that too.

I do not know the probabilities, but I know that the amount of activity is very very high. Currently, on the earth, there is life in the oceans from the surface to the very depths, in the soil down as far as we have looked, even lakes under the ice in Antarctica are teaming with life.
I haven't studied meiosis in detail, and I am not even sure if that is what you are saying would be highly improbable to arise by evolution. Is it? Do you know what it is?
Or were you referring to sexual differentiation (which is not the same thing).

Originally posted by lemon lime
You don't remember reading about the dino bone?

No, I never heard of it.

It happened a few years ago, but I shouldn't have a problem finding it. There is this thing called Google that makes searching for news stories very easy. I think it's called a search engine.
I thought you might have a reference and save me the searching.

Anyway, what was found inside a dino bone was an accidental discovery. The bone was so large and heavy they needed heavy equipment for lifting it. Bones aren't normally broken when being excavated, so discovering what the inside revealed was completely by accident.

I did find this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Is it what you are talking about? If so, it doesn't match your description very well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I never heard of it.

[b]It happened a few years ago, but I shouldn't have a problem finding it. There is this thing called Google that makes searching for news stories very easy. I think it's called a search engine.
I thought you might have a reference and save me the searching.

Anyway, what was found inside a dino bone was an accidental ...[text shortened]... .html
Is it what you are talking about? If so, it doesn't match your description very well.

That could be the same one, but the story doesn't say how the leg was broken. It says the leg was broken into pieces, but that's all it says. The bone I'm talking about was so heavy it had to be lifted out by heavy machinery. The bone broke in half as it was being lifted. It probably wasn't a clean break, so it's likely there were other pieces of broken bone. I don't know, this could be the same dino or maybe it was another one.

The description of what they found in the bone matches pretty well, if not how the bone was broken. According to the article I was referring to, people at the excavation site saw the blood become darker immediately after the bone broke. And according to the article you posted a link to, someone examining the blood said blood platelets don't preserve.

I wouldn't think blood vessels could either, but that's the point. These weren't fossilized platelets and vessels. So how DID they preserve, assuming dinos died out how many millions of years ago? I'm not suggesting the dinos all died out the day before you were born. But I am suggesting it may not have happened as long ago as we had thought.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not know the probabilities, but I know that the amount of activity is very very high. Currently, on the earth, there is life in the oceans from the surface to the very depths, in the soil down as far as we have looked, even lakes under the ice in Antarctica are teaming with life.
I haven't studied meiosis in detail, and I am not even sure if that i ...[text shortened]... now what it is?
Or were you referring to sexual differentiation (which is not the same thing).

It might be more useful to start with abiogenesis. If abiogenesis can be proven or disproven, that would pretty much prove or disprove evolution. We don't need to be looking at zillions of different critters, all we need to do is to see if evolution could have been responsible for starting life in the first place. If that can't be done, then evolution is currently relying on it's own weird version of immaculate conception.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't realize you were referencing the other thread. Then you ask me to stay on topic?

Two guys walk into a thread. The bartender looks up and says "Hey, one of you is in the wrong thread!"

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not suggesting the dinos all died out the day before you were born. But I am suggesting it may not have happened as long ago as we had thought.

And I am saying I need more than rumors from someone on the internet before I even consider that centuries of paleontology could be so wrong.
1. I don't believe witnesses seeing what they think is blood turning darker is scientific enough to draw the conclusion that it was blood.
2. I haven't seen anything other than speculation from you that blood cannot survive that long.
3. I don't yet have any actual reference to back up the story in the first place. The link I found was different in significant details and even that remains controversial.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It might be more useful to start with abiogenesis. If abiogenesis can be proven or disproven, that would pretty much prove or disprove evolution.

I didn't know you were trying to disprove evolution. I really don't see how its relevant. The question was whether male and female could evolve.
That evolution takes place is indisputable. Even RJHinds admits it, he just doesn't like the word so he gives it other names. So I presume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution in that all living things are related.

We don't need to be looking at zillions of different critters, all we need to do is to see if evolution could have been responsible for starting life in the first place. If that can't be done, then evolution is currently relying on it's own weird version of immaculate conception.
Well good luck with that. Many good scientists have been studying abiogenesis for a long time and so far there is no clear evidence that it is impossible, and the quite obvious evidence that it happened (here we are).