Evolution?

[kolanuraven]

Good job of plucking different sentences from different posts and putting them all together into one.

 

[Red Robin]

Hey , most of those were directed at me weren't they Kolan. :lol: :lol: :lol: I am certainly glad no one from the evolutionist side called names. BTW that name calling doesn't bother me. I fully expect you to think I am scary, stupid, odd, whatever. It actually does bother me some of you evolutionist claim a little creation to add credibility to your argument.....come to think of it some of the creation people add a little evolution to make their argument credible. I am satisfied with the creation theory alone. I don't guess we had anyone that believed in evolution as it is taught ....I would have enjoied hearing someone try to explain how all the matter in the universe was compressed into a spinning dot no bigger than a period ( . ) . :lol: :lol: :lol: (pounding my fist in laughter on the table) Man that is a good one. 11 trillion stars for every person alive on earth plus their orbiting masses, plus the dust in the universe etc. That would be a heavy dot!!!

 

[MsSage]

What is asexual reproduction?

Red Robin I saw where no one answered your question.

Asexual reproduction (also known as agamogenesis) is the simplest form of reproduction and does not involve meiosis, gamete formation, or fertilization. In laymen's terms, there is only one "parent" involved. This form of reproduction is common among simple organisms such as amoeba and other single-celled organisms, although most plants produce asexually as well (see vegetative reproduction).

Because it does not require male and female participation, asexual reproduction occurs faster than sexual reproduction and requires less energy. Additionally, asexual reproduction produces an exact replica of the parent due to the lack of genetic recombination. From an evolutionary standpoint, one could thus argue that asexual reproduction is inferior because it stifles the potential for change. However, there is also a significantly reduced chance of mutation or other complications that can result from the mixing of genes.

Many, but not all, single-celled organisms produce asexually through binary fission. Some single-celled organisms rely on one or more host organisms in order to reproduce, but most literally divide into two organisms. An exception to the rule are ciliates, which reproduce both sexually and asexually. All prokaryotes (the vast majority of which are unicellular) reproduce asexually.

There are three types of asexual reproduction utilized by plants: regeneration, vegetative reproduction, and spore formation. The last type, spore formation, involves the production of reproductive cells called spores that contain DNA and develop into a new organism after dispersal. This method of reproduction is found in the ferns, and involves sporogenesis without meiosis. Thus the chromosome number of the spore cell is the same as that of the parent produciung the spores.

[edit]
Advantages and disadvantages
Not only does asexual reproduction offer a variety of ways to reproduce it also offers a number of advantages. For instance, asexual reproduction does not require participation of both a male and a female, while sexual reproduction does. This is why asexual reproduction is faster and requires less energy than sexual reproduction because organisms that can reproduce asexually do not have to spend time trying to find a mate. Instead, they can spend their time reproducing.

Since asexual reproduction is faster than sexual reproduction it gives plants the ability to increase the numbers of a plant population more quickly. Since asexual reproduction only requires one parent it only takes one plant to decide to create a large colony of plants, hence, the proliferation of dandelions and other weeds such as the dandelion. This helps to introduce plants to new habitats.

Another advantage is that asexual reproduction produces an exact replica of the parent. Every time asexual reproduction occurs plants end up with the same set of genes over and over again. Since their gene sequence is not changed their chances of survival are, therefore better because if the parent lived in the same environment and were able to adapt to it, they too should be able to survive (Plant Biology, 2003).

This, however, can serve as a disadvantage. If new factors in the environment are introduced that do not favor the species in question, none of the individual members possess adaptive traits (which they then would've passed on to offspring). Thus, it will be harder for the species as a whole to survive.

What I would like to add is that we will not have the answers we are looking for till we get to where ever it is we believe we go when we die.
I have been teaching about fossils to 2-4th graders and they ask some tuff questions. I am not allowed to tell them one way or the other. BUT according to Federal Law I can tell them What I BELEIVE as long as I make that VERY clear it is MY belief and not something they have to agree with. I have found I am very comfortable telling them that any information we have is HYPOTHESIS. Yes I feel there has been some "adaptation" through the years.

Someone asked can you change a person point of view? Yes you can if they will listen to you and you have facts to back you up. That person has to be willing for the change and so should you. A debate is the descussion of an idea and that always ends in the debators leaving with a changed view.

 

[Red Robin]

MsSage, I was trying to get her to say asexual reproduction was the interface between self replecating and sexual reproduction . It is still very difficult for an asexual worm to find a date to copulate with??? Is it not?

 

[Red Robin]

I can't help it. Here is another post. This time showing the complexity of one of the simplist life forms. 100,000 rpm motor on that bacteria! God sure knew what he was doing.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Cells.html

 

[MsSage]

It is still very difficult for an asexual worm to find a date to copulate with??? Is it not?

Sorry had to share this........ LOL

Amorous worms reveal effects of Chernobyl
WORMS contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident have started having sex with each other instead of on their own. According to Ukrainian scientists, they may have changed their sexual behaviour to increase their chances of survival. It's one of the first pieces of direct evidence on how wildlife is affected by radioactive pollution.
Although there is a wealth of evidence on the impact of ionising radiation on humans, its effects on wildlife are poorly understood. In the past the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which recommends radiation safety limits, has set no limits to protect wildlife, assuming that as long as humans were protected, animals and plants would be too.

But in recent years the ICRP has abandoned this assumption and launched an investigation into how best to safeguard "non-human species". Many researchers are focusing on how wildlife has been affected by the radioactivity that spewed from the exploded reactor at Chernobyl in Ukraine, 17 years ago this month.

Gennady Polikarpov and Victoria Tsytsugina from the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas in Sevastopol studied the reproduction of certain sedimentary worms that are vital to aquatic ecosystems (Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol 66, p 141). They compared the behaviour of three species in a lake near Chernobyl with the same species in a lake 20 kilometres away. The lakes had similar temperatures and chemical composition, but the worms in the Chernobyl lake had received 20 times as much radiation as those in the other lake. The researchers found some remarkable changes in the worms' sexual habits.

Two species had switched from asexual to sexual reproduction, as they are capable of doing. The proportion of Nais pardalis seeking partners for sex was 5 per cent in the normal lake but 22 per cent in the Chernobyl lake, while the proportions of Nais pseudobtusa doing the same were 10 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. However, the third species, Dero obtusa, showed double the rate of asexual reproduction in the polluted lake.

Polikarpov thinks the worms have switched to sexual reproduction in an attempt to protect themselves from the radiation. Sexual reproduction allows natural selection to promote genes that offer better protection from radiation damage, and "the resistance of populations as a whole will be increased", he suggests. Carmel Mothersill from the Dublin Institute of Technology, one of the experts helping the ICRP develop its new policy on protecting wildlife, agrees. "It is a plausible mechanism," she says.

 

[Northern Rancher]

THe scariest thing I ever heard on this debate was a good 'christian' friends explanation-"God created white people but Negroes evolved from the apes". My beliefs are my own I'll stick to debating cattle and hockey-something we are all emminentlly better qualified to do.

 

[Steve]

I to have learned when evolution as put forth in Darwn's theory is questioned, those that believe in Creation try to explain thier views.

some use technicle data to back up thier view, some try to show data that supports thier view, while others just explin thier thoughts, most do a great job of understanding the others points. but rarely attack the bibles view of the events,

Through RR;, I have learned that I am not a physist and care never to be one...(but many good points were presented.)

Through MP freelance;, I have saw a great tolerance for others views.
(and some great views)

Through R2;, I have seen a greater depth of Hebrew texts and learned to look deeper at the original texts.

Through Hired Hands Wife;, I have been able state with more conviction that I do not believe in Darwin's theory,,,BUT. have to admit I do accept micro-evolution, (small changes within a species)...




and in further defending my Belief in Creation I found a interesting sight...


Who is John Clayton?
A devout atheist , Clayton was part of the same organized atheist group that made Madeline Murray O'Hair famous. He decided to write a book called All the Stupidity of the Bible,

Today, he travels the U.S. giving some 40 lectures per year on the subject "Does God Exist?". He is a teacher and geologist by profession. He holds a B.S. degree from Indiana. University in Education with a concentration in Physics and mathematics. He holds a M.S. degree from Indiana University in Education with a concentration in Chemistry and Psychometry. He also holds a M.S. degree from Notre Dame University in Geology and Earth Science. His most recent honors include: Distinguished Physics Teacher for the State of Indiana - 1985 by the American Association of Physics Teachers. S.T.A.R Instructor for Indiana Department of Public Instruction - 1990. "South Bend Community School Corporation High School Teacher of the Year" and "School Corporation Teacher of the Year" - 1991.

and a surprising conclusion....

Genesis makes perfect sense when it is followed in a literal and careful way,(following the hebrew text), recognizing that the sequence given was used initially and still takes place today in processes like succession.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord.html

 

[katrina]

I have learned tons, And I thank you.. This has been the best thread.

 

[Red Robin]

At my house tonight we have been rewatching some Kent Hovind debates. Kents website (drdino.com) is where I got alot of my material for our discussion. In his debates he goes to some universities and debates popular athiest or college scientist that are for evolution. They are fast moving , informative and very entertaining from either position I believe. Anyway, his material is not copyrighted and is free for public distribution. If anyone would like a copy of one of his DVD's I'll send one at my expense. They are well reasoned but no doubt are from a Christian viewpoint. If you are interested just pm me your name and address and I'll put one in the mail. Of course if you like I'll keep your name and address confidential. Even for you liberals it would be good material for you to have in your arsenal for debating the other side. If nothing else it would pass the long nights this winter. Let me know.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Red Robin, Another name you would find to be of interest if Ravi Zacharias. An author and tremendous Christian apologist who has a fascinating grasp of facts, figures and probability scales that make evolution theories melt like snow in July.

I have some of his writing but can't think of the titles.

Thermodynamics at work? :wink: :???:

 

[Red Robin]

Ravi is one of the most brilliant minds of today. He gets to speak to about every head of state. Russia and some African nation wanted him to come speak about Christianity. They said everything else had failed. Everything else will fail.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Yes, everything else will fail.

Maybe you have also heard of the video series named "Transformations". It tell the story of incredible changes that have taken place in some of the worst troubled areas in the world when people came to know the real power of the Gospel story.

Wow. Gotta see it to believe it. Oops, didn't Thomas say something like that? :?

 

[Red Robin]

No I am not familiar with Transformations. Is that put out by the same people that put out the radio series "unshackled" ...Could be the gospel light house mission in Chicago...2nd law again...I can't remember if that is the right name.
edit: Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago....thanks Google.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

I do not remember who produced it but I want to get it from our resource center to show at church. If I manage to find it again, I will put the source up for any to see.

It is a must see for any who are interested in seeing how the Kingdom can grow.

 

[Red Robin]

I thought of this thread when I saw the article on this animal thought to be extinct. Here is the link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11746910/?GT1=7850

 

[CattleRMe]

I haven't voted as you don't have my choice available...

The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think they're both right...
(that of evolution and God, that is, since Darwinism isn't quite the same thing as evolution)

I completely agree. Why would God be less powerful if he created the Universe in billions of years instead of just five thousand? It's just our perception of time anyway. The Pope said that there's room in Christianity for evolution, and even as a semi-apostate Catholic I agree.

Thats kind of the stance I've taken...What is a day to God? You can't just throw out the entire evolution theory because some parts are unproven- because you can see some instances taking place daily... How did horned herefords become polled?

A Catholic priest told me time is man made.

 

[langcattlecompany]

The Pope said that there's room in Christianity for evolution,

Well, He's gotta be right.

 

[zephyrus31]

We're not monkeys.

 

[Jinglebob]

We're not monkeys.

But, but, what about Katrina!? :???: :?