Thank you for your clarification Shelby . . .
I'm pleased we share the same wariness of dogmatism.
And that we agree, albeit inferentially, that discovery is a journey rather than an event.
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AGuest
Since they are not manifest I cannot perceive them. Since I cannot perceive them and furthermore can't construct in my mind the conditions under which they might possibly be true I choose not to assign to them a degree of importance that would cause me to think and live my life differently than I do.
Which I and my companions totally understand, dear one (the greatest of love and peace to you!). Which is why I don't think our response were as much about convincing ANYONE... as they were about explaining OUR perceptions... and why/how they exist. Because [religion] is often very pushy (particularly the "christian" ilk), it is assumed that ALL who profess to have faith in God/Christ are "pushing" their beliefs. I really don't think that is the case with those of us who responded here. Rather, I think that, as is our usual practice, we simply attempted to respond and EXPLAIN... but NOT push.
I totally understand how an unbeliever would resent being force-fed "beliefs"... or told that their ultimate fate depends on believing. I can truly only speak for myself, but that has NEVER been my goal, intent, purpose... or message. The only people that I know of whose fate so depends are those who profess a union with Christ. If you make such a profession... but live/teach in opposition to it... you are either misguided... or an imposter. If you profess NO belief... so be it - I may ask you some questions in order to understand some of your claims/assertions (as you did, here), but I don't have a "problem" with your lack of belief - I actually understand that MORE... than I do those who claim to believe... yet, deny that Christ is alive and/or speaks. The latter actually negates the first, IMHO.
I don't want to convince you of anything, either.
Yes, I got that from you almost from the start. I understood... as I am sure my companions also did... that you truly were trying to understand. And not simply in order to dismiss our responses but perhaps even to have a basis on which to understand and/or communicate with another/others. So, I thank you, truly, for your UNCONDITIONAL acceptance of my RIGHT to believe whatever I do... AS I do. I will always grant you the same consideration... unless/until you start teaching falsehoods as to/about the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... or His Son, the Holy One of Israel, my Lord, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Which I don't think YOU would ever do. As an unbeliever OR believer.
Thank you for your clarification Shelby . . .
You are quite welcome, dear Size... and the greatest of love and peace to you, as well! I am glad that I was able TO clarify!
I'm pleased we share the same wariness of dogmatism.
Me, too! You know, I really have a problem with ANYONE who used to be a JW... or having some substantial knowledge as to their teachings and actions... who can be dogmatic as to what we don't/cannot know... yet. Makes no sense to me. None of these should be able to completely dismiss science... OR faith... IMHO. Or, if they do... have contempt for those who don't see/[dis]believe as they do. You don't see as I do? No worries - you be you... and let me be me. You don't believe? I don't care - I only care if you treat others poorly/horribly. In which case, I just might tell you to stop it. But you're a loving, kind, compassionate person... who just doesn't believe in God? Who am I to judge you? To your own "master" (which could include natural science, etc.)... you will stand or fall. Regardless, won't add or take away a cubit from MY lifespan. I share what I hear/see/know/am given... but leave you the CHOICE... to hear... or refrain. Isn't that what love SHOULD do?
And that we agree, albeit inferentially, that discovery is a journey rather than an event.
Indeed. And may YOUR journey [of discovery] be as rewarding for YOU... as mine has been for me!
Again, peace to you both!
YOUR servant... and a slave of Christ, always,
SA
-
Nickolas
What is without question the most endearing quality of the JWN environment is its fresh air. Adults able to have direct conversations without ruffling feathers. I have learned so very much in here. It will be difficult for me to take my leave when the time comes.
-
Awen
I have a few questions about Evolution that has thus far not been adressed.
If we all evolved from single-cell organisms (that reproduce assexually) then how did we get to where we are today?
Evolution would imply that an organism uses the most direct and simplest means to evolve.
Sexual reproduction in humans for example is quite complex so why do we reproduce this way and not assexually as Evolution says the first single cell organisms did?
Why is the fertilized egg not attacked by the mother's immune system since it constitutes a foreign body (containing male chromosomes) before the placenta is "created".
I've looked all over the internet for an answer to this and thus far have only come up with more questions.
Where did males and females actually come from?
What is the evolutionary origin of sex?
How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?
How is it that these eggs and sperm conveniently evolved so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of body cells?
A wikipedia article on the Evolution of Sexual Reproduction and competing theories.
Evolution of Sexual Reproductio
Immune Tolerance and Pregnancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutherian_fetoembryonic_defense_system_(eu-FEDS)_hypothesis
-
Nickolas
Hello Awen. The advent of sexual reproduction is not quite as onerous a subject as is abiogenesis but similarly one of those things which are difficult to test experimentally. Despite the cost to the sexually reproducing organism there are evolutionary benefits to sexual vs asexual reproduction, about which we can spend a great deal of time discussing, and as much as it would accrue to a better understanding of the dynamic it would take the conversation onto an entirely different course - perhaps it would be worthwhile being discussed at length in its own thread.
For the sake of this one, a good theory might be that certain simple organisms developed the ability to fuse together into a temporary complex of sorts, in which ever so slightly different DNA strands were mingled immediately before something similar to asexual reproduction took over. This is not how it works in sexually reproducing organisms that normally (there are exceptions) share half of their genetic code with another individual that shares half of its genetic code and the two halves combine to form the set of instructions that will build the child organism. In the hypothetical, the entire genetic codes of each individual are mingled in an unstable complex and then the combination is halved into a more stable configuration almost identical to the genetic configurations of the original two organisms. Theoretically very few viable child organisms might result, but it would not take many to start the process, in particular when the child organism with a slight evolutionary benefit results.
What needed to happen within the evolution of organisms sharing their genetic codes with one another is to develop an efficient mechanism to transmit half of their genetic information to one another and for this there had to have developed some sort of interface. That interface at the beginning might have been entirely hermaphroditic, like a much simplified version of the sexual interface employed by bi-sexual annelids (like dew worms), but would over a slow progression of time differentiate into discretely different but perfectly complimentary interfaces, like a key in a lock in the case of the penis/vagina interface, or a pairing that is just two almost identical orifices, as in the case of birds, where the sexual differences are internal - one sex developing testes specialising in producing cells that contain exactly half his DNA and the other sex developing ovaries specialising in producing cells that contain exactly half of her DNA.
-
jgnat
Not about sex, but a neat theory how the modern complex eye may have evolved.
-
-
Abaddon
Awen:
As far as the actual evolution of sexual reproduction, there are ideas but they are not proven; you can Google as well as I and have already provided links in your post. Here is another:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
It looks at the very start of the process (how haploid cells with one copy of each chromosome fuse to become duploid cells with two copies of each chromosome. how this is not irreducably complex as is often claimed, and why this would be advantagous). It is part of a series which means if there are bits you don't get or questions that remain unanswered you can go backwards or forwards in the sequence.
But remember, Google, Wiki and YouTube are not the normal methods of academic learning. You can do scholarly research outside of academic environments but it takes considerabley more time and effort than a bit of surfing.
- Evolution would imply that an organism uses the most direct and simplest means to evolve.
Yes but no. Organisms in a population of organisms that have characteristics that allow them to have a greater number of offspring than is normal for that population of organism will result in those characteristics being more common in sucessive generation of that population. A complex 'accidental' charateristic that allows greater transmission of genes to successive generations will 'win' over a simple pre-existing characteristic. An organism also does not 'know' the difference between complex and non-complex, there is no 'choice', there is just success in passing on genes. Some are better than others.
- Sexual reproduction in humans for example is quite complex so why do we reproduce this way and not assexually as Evolution says the first single cell organisms did?
Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC8LZlmwCzE&feature=related. Human sexual reproduction is a further elaboration of pre-existing sexual reproductions and as such is slighly more complex than those methods of sexual reprodction that went before it as they were of those that went before them. As the linked video shows, it all started with cells fusing.
Each layer of oomplexity was selected for because it allowed greater success in passing on genes and/or greater variability in the genes passed on so as to allow natural selection more to select from. For example, if an asexual organism can have 1x chances of a new trait, an sexual organism will have 2x chances (this is VERY simplified). So we reproduce sexually as it allowed us to be more adaptable and successful in our environment; some organisms still successfully use asexual reproduction as it wiorks perfectly well for them in their environment.
- Why is the fertilized egg not attacked by the mother's immune system since it constitutes a foreign body (containing male chromosomes) before the placenta is "created".
Two-way process that is not fully understood; progesterone is a immuno-suppresant, the placenta produces another one, and the fetus is active in not being rejected. The placenta is key. But this bio-feedback loop did not happen overnight and each step along the way from cell fusion to eggs to live bearing had advantages.
- How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?
Not seperate things. Happened at same time. If a 'male' organism got too out-of-step with 'female' organisms it would not be able to reproduce and vice-versa. Thus over huge amounts of time this arrose in minute steps.
Great questions Awen and some of the answers are not fully understood yet. However, do not fall for the IDist or Creationist dimwittery of assuming just because evolutionists cannot explain everything evolution is fundamentally wrong. We might not be able to fully explain some things but the evidence for evolution, both in fossils and in genes, is incontravertable, and falsifies any literal interpretation of any creation myth.
-
Awen
Thanks for all the kind replies. Been a bit sick lately and may take a while to get back to you on this.
Peace
Awen
-
bohm
an information-theoretical treatment of sexual recombination indicate the following benefits:
- a much larger gene pool, allowing more diversity to be selected from
- greater tolerance for mutations (ie. allow larger, more complex genes to exist in a smaller population)
- in a simple model, natural selection in an asexual world add about 1 bit to the gene pool about the outside world per individual, sexual recombination about sqrt(N) bits where N is the size of the population.
this does not answer the question how the mechanisms of sexual recombination arose, but it show there are clear benefits of sexual recombination, and any low-order approximation (ie. asexual exchange of genes across membranes in bacteria) can be expected to be beneficial and thus selected for.