The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)
EdenOne: I will be an atheist the day irrefutable evidence leads me that way.
Irrefutable evidence of what? You said yourself that "atheism is defined as the absence of belief in deities" and you certainly lack that belief. You are an atheist.
eden you might want to check out epigenetic resetting here (courtesy of the open university) note the date of this research - 2009 - and the article acknowledges the work of the scholars mentioned in your link - and yes I did read the link
when I have time I will share some of this research if you cannot gain access.
here is the abstract
Sex is generally thought of as meiosis, conjugation, and syngamy, with the primary function of sex believed to be genetic mixing. However, conjugation does not occur with complete automixis, whereas syngamy does not occur with restitutional automixis. Self sex in the forms of automixis and autogamy does not include genetic mixing. Yet sex, including self sex, is necessary for most eukaryotic lineages. What is the purpose of sex without genetic mixing? Obligate self sex is not an evolutionary dead end, but holds the key to understanding the evolutionary origin, function, maintenance, and ubiquity of sex. We extend the rejuvenescence hypothesis that sex provides a necessary developmental reset for multicellular eukaryotes and even many unicellular eukaryotes. Sex reduces additive genetic variance of epigenetic signals, especially cytosine methylation, and of ploidy levels. Furthermore, we argue that syngamy is a modified form of meiosis that maintains ploidy and resets epigenetic signals. Epigenetic resetting is consistent with sex being induced by starvation or desiccation. Diminution of additive genetic variance is consistent with the origin and maintenance of an adaptive trait, sex, that has been present for approximately two billion years. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 98, 707–728.
Oh you lot are tiresome! The problem with sex? I'm not getting any!...AARRGh!
what not even self sex?
Eden, if you can believe any of the above, you can just as well believe in God and the Bible. These actually make more sense. Think of DNA as a manual of how to build a cell/organism. In time minor changes (or mutations) could occur, changing the manual. Major changes (or mutations) would kill off the organism. The manual, as information, cannot arise by itself, from organic or inorganic matter. You need someone to write the manual and its applications.
So how would the sexes originate? The manual needs to be written (programmed) for that. The question is: Who wrote the manual? What the evolutionists are saying: Archaea (basic or simplified organisms) > Eucharyotes (complex organisms) > colony formation > multicelluar organisms > male/female organisms. How would they prove their theory? How would they be able to demonstrate such changes? Archaea > male and female mammal (and everything in between). So far they have been unsuccessful. Wishful thinking if you ask me.
Vidqun starts with:
Think of DNA as a manual of how to build a cell/organism.
then goes on:
The manual, as information, cannot arise by itself, from organic or inorganic matter. You need someone to write the manual and its applications.
The manual needs to be written (programmed) for that. The question is: Who wrote the manual?
To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.
Thanks for the practical example, Vidqun.
I'd encourage anyone tempted by creationist arguments to read Vidqun's last post. Can you see how he's urging you not to think? Not to read literature by qualified professionals? Not to research?
No, for Vidqun it's simple; 'complicated therefore god'.
Don't trust me or Vidqun, read, research and learn!
Vidqun - "Think of DNA as a manual of how to build a cell/organism..."
...an assembly manual compiled of a hodgepodge of a dozen different (poorly translated) languages, egregious spelling mistakes, pages out of order, random text upside down, outdated code, dead end or useless instructions, and some of the worst examples of grammar you've ever seen.
IKEA instructions are easier to follow.
I suppose from that POV, it really is a f**king miracle we exist...
...but if we were deliberately designed by a deity, he'd be an unsupervised six-year-old with ADD who'd gotten ahold of his dad's tools... :smirk:
an assembly manual compiled of a hodgepodge of a dozen different (poorly translated) languages, egregious spelling mistakes, pages out of order, random text upside down, outdated code, dead end or useless instructions, and some of the worst examples of grammar you've ever seen.
Funny about this lot, with all these stupidities, it actually works. Even "a hodgepodge of a dozen different (poorly translated) languages," comprising of information, need to be compiled by an intelligent mind. That's how languages work. These would fall under the laws of information. There is no such thing as "junk" DNA. You were an embryo before you were born. A lot of it was used then, and not again. And if it is that simple, why don't you come up with exactly how it works, clever boy. Why don't you improve on the recipe then to make it better? Put your money where you're mouth is.
No, Sheperdless, not only is it the manual of life, it also runs a factory, assembling protein and what not, one that we have not been able to duplicate. It actually has a built-in error correction system. Sorry for that oversight. It is much more than a manual. So, if it is circular reasoning, how would you describe it?