Simple to Complex - Reproduction

Blowing smoke Mike. You should know better. Almost all of the reproduction we see is by simple cell division. Nonsense,Mike. That's not even blowing smoke, it's simply a lie. If not, please supply the evidence that anyone hides bigger fossils and also, while you're at it, show how it has anything to do with the topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So what? Once the sperm and egg are produced, they're separate simple structures. I don't believe anyone has told you that, Mike. In fact, you've repeated the word "chance" somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty kajillion times within the last couple days, no matter how many times people patiently explain to you that it is not random chance.

Mike,Surely you have been around this board long enough to have picked up some information about the theory of evolution, haven't you? Right. Random mutation alone can't do that. But random mutation combined with natural selection most certainly can. Yes. Chance is part of the story. But it is not the whole story. Chance plays a role in the form of the randomness of mutations. But natural selection accounts for the gradual build-up of design.There are no "exact mutations needed". Only if we could run evolution again, and only if we expected the exact same life forms we have now to form again, would certain "exact mutations" be "needed". But even if this scenario were possible - which it isn't - then one rogue comet would blow the whole plan to smithereens. The sequence of mutations that led to our existence was neither "exact" nor "needed". Why? Simply because we were never planned. We just happened. If other mutations had happened - the number of possible sequences is astronomical - some other intelligent life form might be dicussing these issues, or perhaps the earth would just be covered in slime, still.These things have been explained time and again, yet creationists keep ignoring them. Why is that? Have creationists developed teflon brains?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I strongly disagree that we were not planned, and that we "just happened". THIS is why you don't understand, and therefore say; You see, - this is an off-topic attempt to attack the persons rather than the argument, and has nothing to do with the topic.I know quite a bit about evolution - what I don't know, is why I should be expected to believe it, as that wouldn't effect it's truth anyway.Now even the simple start of reproduction is anything but simple to complex, it is not simple. Meiosis is an exacting process of intent. Diploid to haploid.Furthermore, this is not smoke Jar - it is fact. FACT is that the information required to reproduce - is already available, that something you call simple, can go to complex. This is because the information is already there, YET I still say it's not simple.What hasn't been demonstrated, is that there is any simplicity. Dan says there is - I expect that's a fair position. I also expect that the burden of proof is on him, to show how simple the process is. But imo, no life is simple when looked at closely.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:23 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:24 AM

You may well believe that but so far no one has been able to show any evidence that that is the case. In fact, all of the evidence that I've ever seen shows that there was not a plan.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Mike.You said: Here's an opportunity for you to support the idea of "planning". Please go to this post of mine, pick any example in that one or in post 123 for that matter, and detail how such evidence is interpreted under your "everything is planned" paradigm. Go ahead - if you're that confident, you shouldn't have any difficulty whatsoever in blowing my examples out of the water, n'est-ce pas?

Gee, Mike. Where did I ever say that the process was simple?We gotta get you a pair of ruby slippers and a terrier, because apparently the strawman is your best friend these days.

Exactly. All the evidence you look at is atheist. You support atheists. I won't judge you - but blimey Jar - you seem to be heavily in favour of atheism.But there is evidence of purpose, and you should atleast read those lengthy posts I made, that prove this, in my Hypothesis of consciousness. I don't want to go into an off-topic debate about how you only accept evidence for evolution and an unplanned and Godless creation. But what evidence is there for this? --> ONLY EVOLUTIONISTS suggest there being no plan to creation - but there is no evidence of that - because you've now stepped out of science, and into the realm of the opinionated. The intelligent posters, will know exactly what I mean by this. You will know what I mean by this.Evolution doesn't suggest "no plan" - yet here are evolutionists telling me there isn't one. Which is it? You can't have both.

Dan - you said we say that it's from simple to complex. Who's really strawmanning?Where exactly did I say that?

Evolution (not the Theory of Evolution but rather what actually happened) does not suggest "no plan", it proves there was no plan.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually Quetzal - it was his claim that we are unplanned. ANd I responded to it. But give me some credit - I'm not so dumb that I'm going to defend a position someone is teling me I'm in. I've claimed nothing - I disagreed with the claim. And you know that because I happen to know how brainy you are. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 10:45 AM

So evolution says there was no plan, unlike the biblical account, and therefore suggest God is wrong, and implies no God?Thanks - that's what I've been saying all along.

Yes. I said we start out as something simple, and become something complex. At no point did I say that the process by which this is accomplished was simple. You. Duh. In the passage I quoted. You said that the burden was on me to show how simple the process was.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-17-2004 10:46 AM

Double post.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-17-2004 10:45 AM

One might point out the the evolutionary process is, I would think, complex also. It accomplishs complex outputs as well.