Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

[Makky]

I have. what's your point?

Welcome Root!

the pending Question is the 3rd one in this thread.. you answered the 1st group, and you don't need to answer the 2nd Question as its clear that you are an evolutionist Atheist , the third Question is :

the Question again For any Atheist or evolutionist:
Regarding That a unicellular organizm reproduces by Division asexually while the leaf insect reproduces sexually, could you explain to us HOW its possible scientifically For unicellular organisms to mutate to be multicellular organisms that have 2 kinds of complementary genital organs matching together inorder to reproduce sexually

 

[Makky]

I am not your pawn.

By-By Makky.

Ok wilber its up to you, but it seems that you don't read my posts carefully

bye

 

[guyabano]

Welcome Root!

the pending Question is the 3rd one in this thread.. you answered the 1st group, and you don't need to answer the 2nd Question as its clear that you are an evolutionist Atheist , the third Question is :

Now, this will definetely answer it. And please, read it carefully and conciencely as it is the exact answer to your question. It is just a matter if you will understand it. I forwarded this question to a Professor in science who I know.

He said:

During evolution, some unicellular organisms improved survival via symbiosis (each cell did something that improved the survival or another). For example, one cell mutated to produce a metabolic product needed by the other...and vice versa. So the first change...as a result of mutations occuring within individual cells...was the generation of multicellular colonies. Pond scum and tube worms are living examples. Over a great deal of time and many, many mutations, subcolonies of cells within the larger colony develped, each specializing in some new function that benefited the colony as a whole. This marked the beginning of tissues and eventually, organs. Replacement of cells subcolonies was via mitosis...or simple cell division (full 2 copies of DNA)....which yields clones of identical cells.

Sexual reproduction at the celluar level only requires 2 things: 1) a single copy of of the genomic DNA and 2) transfer of this to another cell with a single copy of genomic DNA. A simple mutation in DNA synthesis in one subcolony of cells would have created the precursors of "eggs" and "sperm" by this process which we call "meiosis". And as for transfer mechanisms...there are MANY different kinds in unicellular organisms. Bacteria routinely transfer DNA-containing plasmids to other bacteria.

So...meiosis is the fundamental mechanism of sexual reproducton which is...at the DNA level...simply DNA "recombination". Two single copies of DNA recombine to form the full complement. Recombining DNA provides survival value by passing on useful mutations in one cell to others within a subcolony. Hence, natural selection preserved this mechanism.

As for the sexual organs, these clearly developed as multicellular organisms became more complex. At some stage the multicelluar organism became a distinct "animal" or a "plant" and some means for transferring DNA from one individual to another co-evolved. The path would have been complex and involved many mutations to create a transfer device for one "animal" and a recepticle for another.

Hermaphroditic worms probably represent one stage in this development. And parthenogenesis....reproduction from an egg in the absence of sperm....is probably another stage. The latter has been preserved in some reptiles.

So "sexual organs" may have first developed in a SINGLE animal...which then mutated into two different sorts of creatures...namely males and females. Think of an earth worm with both male and female sexual organs. All it takes is a series of mutations that produce offspring which possess one type of sexual organ or the other. Parthenogenesis permits reproduction in the absence of a "mate"...partial survival...but it doesn't capture useful mutations in other members of a species. Hence, natural selection has not favored it as a universal mechanism.

Now I really urge you to stop digging more, as you blatantly failed your mission in this thread, that Allah is the creator of all. It is simply evolution and mutation which brang up lifeforms on this earth.

This was my last post in this thread as I prooved all what was to proove !

Peace !

 

[Makky]

Finally!!!
Thanks guyabano this was the answer I was waiting for, I was waiting for an answer like that from more than 5 days!!
all these claims were discussed many times before. but as I told you I started this thread to expose Atheists and evolutionists.
It would be easy to copy-paste links or books and websites as most of the evolutionists here like to do , like ranma1/2 who follows a theory called ( paste and run)

but finally an Atheist here started to use his senses and to be specific and to follow a scientific way for discussion , this person is guyabano

he is better than many evolutionists here , though it took him time to evolute and mutate to be a specific debater.

guyabano simply realized that he must ask a BIG evolutionist to answer this question that has never passed by his mind before . He lost his trust in all his search engines that let him down and others as well many times in this thread.

guyabano due to natural selection as mentioned in the theory of evolution you should stay, you shouldn't leave the thread while you are the only one at least at this moment who succeed to bring a valid answer for discussion ( not a valid answer to the question , the proof is coming later )

I was really about to skip this Question because i was frustrated from the low level of the discussion

Wilber...its not a problem for me to skip this Question to discuss the next Questions,, Didn't you notice that we haven't discussed yet the leaf insect itself.. there is a chain of Questions until we reach the leaf insect itself. But the debaters are weaker than I was expecting. though i know that this Question has no answer but at least i was expecting a higher level of debaters. at least Fair ones.

But now i wont skip the Question, because there is something to discuss, though it has been discussed many times before. but you know its a good thing in inviting people to the truth -when normal evolutionists see by their eyes the claims of their scientists being refuted - .

that why the invitation in the beginning of the thread was

This is an invitation to the greatest Atheists ( no Atheist is great ) in the world to debate here in this thread

this is a serious Challenge​

Guyabano you are in contact with a scientist why do you want to go? staying here will rise the level of the thread .

As I mentioned before the aim of this thread is to expose those who don't believe in GoD ..at least infornt of themselves

Guybano has proven to us that:

ranma1/2,Trumble,dave2,wilber,and guabano himself - maybe i can exclude root- are :

1- Fanatic unjust evolutionists:

because they were claming that they were answering valid answers , yet the only scientific valid answer (valid for discussion only) was brought later by guyabano.

2- blind followers

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

this is a serious advice for you : most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on . but its very clear that you only have some general knowledge about evolution . its not difficult for a normal person to realize that he couldn't settle his beliefs - on which his fate will be determined - he couldn't settle his beliefs on general knowledge , or on assumptions and doubts. so the advise is : proof before belief .

My last advice before starting the discussion : let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

--------------------------
note
proof before belief belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

 

[maroon1]

People accept evolution without solid evidence. "Millions of years" of evidence which should have cumulated is simply not there...

There are zero evidence for creationism

There are many evidence of evolution, like transitional fossils,....... etc

It is a fact that inherited traits of a population changes from generation to generation.

It is a fact that mutation and genetic drifts happens

It is a fact that there are transitional fossils

It is a fact that each kind of animal have adapted to their environment through the process natural selection (for example, camel have biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert)


All these facts and evidences leads us to the conclusion that evolution is true, and all those facts contradicts with creationism. Creationism can't explain how did we have different races of human (white, Negro, Asians). creationism can't explain how camels had biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert

And there is no alternative theory for evolution

 

[guyabano]

@Makky,

please keep sarcasm out of here! if you cannot accept this answer as a truth, so let it be and simply accept, there are people who have other beliefs than you.
One thing you have to learn is to be more tolerant, my dear brother in humanity !

@Mods: This question/topic has been answered completely and should be closed

Add:

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

I gave you every evidence you needed, so I don't get your point !

 

[Trumble]

most of you are atheists and you all have preconseption that evolution is your evidence on which your atheism rests on

"Proof before belief", huh? OK...

If I may offer a little observation myself in return? You seem have a very strange idea that most atheists got to be that way because of their 'belief' in evolution. Actually, for the vast majority, that is not the case and never has been. There have, amazingly, been atheists since an awfully long time before Darwin... my own religious tradition has been atheistic (at least in the sense you mean) for a thousand years before Islam existed. Theism and evolution are not even incompatible.

In my own case, and a lot of other people's, the 'killer' argument (there are several others) is the so-called "Problem of Evil" and the failure of theists to provide an even remotely convincing solution to it. That particular issue has been discussed at great length in previous threads.

 

[Makky]

@Makky,

please keep sarcasm out of here! if you cannot accept this answer as a truth, so let it be and simply accept, there are people who have other beliefs than you.
One thing you have to learn is to be more tolerant, my dear brother in humanity !

You cant call it tolerance when you see someone taking a lethal poison and you don't even give him an advice.

Do you call it tolerance when you are able to rescue someone but you don't pay attention.

@Mods: This question/topic has been answered completely and should be closed

why do you want the thread to be closed! do you want it to be closed quikly before i answer ?

From where did you know that my reply wont refute this answer?

Didn't I say :

because they Follow thier preconseptions even without any evidence in thier hands

Guyabano I didn't mean to offend you personaly , but remember :
let your priority is to find the truth , for only one reason, for your personal salvation . Don't wrong yourself inorder to look good in a debate

 

[Makky]

There are zero evidence for creationism

There are many evidence of evolution, like transitional fossils,....... etc

It is a fact that inherited traits of a population changes from generation to generation.

It is a fact that mutation and genetic drifts happens

It is a fact that there are transitional fossils

It is a fact that each kind of animal have adapted to their environment through the process natural selection (for example, camel have biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert)


All these facts and evidences leads us to the conclusion that evolution is true, and all those facts contradicts with creationism. Creationism can't explain how did we have different races of human (white, Negro, Asians). creationism can't explain how camels had biological traits that let him survive in the hot desert

And there is no alternative theory for evolution

Maroon1 you are welcome to post here.. but please the debate has a context
Do you agree with Guyabano in his last answer for the 3rd Question?

 

[Makky]

"Proof before belief", huh? OK...

If I may offer a little observation myself in return? You seem have a very strange idea that most atheists got to be that way because of their 'belief' in evolution. Actually, for the vast majority, that is not the case and never has been. There have, amazingly, been atheists since an awfully long time before Darwin... my own religious tradition has been atheistic (at least in the sense you mean) for a thousand years before Islam existed. .

I don't pay attention except for educated Atheists after Darwin..

proof before belief

proof before belief : belief here is not equal to faith because we are all born with faith by default yet some become Atheists and some become buddists etc

 

[Trumble]

I don't pay attention except for educated Atheists after Darwin..

Perhaps you should, you might learn something.

The same arguments are just as relevant and important to those "educated Atheists after Darwin".

 

[ranma1/2]

I don't pay attention ..../QUOTE]


wow the only sincere thing you have said so far...

 

[MustafaMc]

Evolution is not goal oriented so its not heading toward a "perfect" form. But it allows for "improvement" through mutation and weeding out those less fit through selection.

Asexual reproduction for instance has a main drawback in that you can not easily adapt, all mutations must come from your line. Were as if you sexually reproduce you can then have multiple sources of dna that can have all types of mutations that allow for greater selection and adapatation.

And there is no need for life. However ignoring that, through the process of evo, those forms that can reproduce quicker will more likely dominate a gene pool. So need in not needed. Just a process.

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/55
Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born? Is it not the expression of deleterious recessive (mutated) genes that are masked in the heterozygous state by expression of the functional, unmutated allele? Even the case of the sickle-cell anemia mutation that Sister PurestAmbrosia has previously referenced is deleterious in the homozygous state. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

 

[MustafaMc]

I would love to see a human just try to create something out of nothing.:rollseyes

I agree, sister, what about the creation without the use of a living organism of a single functional protein such as hemoglobin from the elemental building blocks of carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, ammonia, iron, etc? If man can't do it in a laboratory with his intimate knowledge of biochemistry, then how can it form by itself just by chance in nature.

 

[جوري]

Question for you - What happens when closely related, as opposed to completely unrelated, people have sexual intercourse and produce children? Does this type of mating result in children that are stronger, smarter and more evolutionary fit, or is the exact opposite true?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/55
Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

What is the reason for children from the mating of a brother with his sister being less fit if the child survives long enough to even be born? Is it not the expression of deleterious recessive (mutated) genes that are masked in the heterozygous state by expression of the functional, unmutated allele? Even the case of the sickle-cell anemia mutation that Sister PurestAmbrosia has previously referenced is deleterious in the homozygous state. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the foundation for the creation of new and improved species from a single uni-cellular "common ancestor" through naturalistic evolution that is not guided by a Higher Power?

Akhi pls don't descend down to the level of this cartoonist.. it is futile.. and just to add even in the heterozygous for HbS/HbF produce 60-70% HbS and 20-30% HbF-- they may certainly exhibit symptoms under extreme conditions of Hypoxia, Dehydration, Vascular Stasis, Fever or Acidosis, and you'll see sickling and it confers no benefits save in the remote states of Malaria (which I was the one who pointed it out to begin with) the same way I pointed out that trinucleotide repeat expansion defy the very basics of natural selection.... Do you really want to engage an ailing one track mind or are you just missing the cut and paste of Berckley with no thought or integration of the material whatsoever?

 

[MustafaMc]

A good example for the perfection of evolution is the cockroach. Yes, indeed, the cockroach didn't change its physical appearance anymore since at least 1 million of years. It reached its perfection as a creature for its needs. It's a survivor, and it will even survive mankind, and who knows, will still be there, when a new civilisation will arise on this planet.

If cockroaches would know to speak, what would they tell us... ?

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection.^o)

 

[CptSunbeam]

So this species, the mighty cockroach, became completely immune to the species-creating process of mutation. Interesting, I thought evolution claimed continuous species improvement through mutation, genetic recombination and natural selection

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

As I'm led to believe, Natural Selection proceeds not because an organism adapts directly to its environment, but because only those members with beneficial genes survive. So the least fit members of a species are weeded out. In this manner, the species slowly "changes" to one better suited to its environment. This does not mean that mutations do not occur, it just means that unless you are born with the mutation, it is not inherited.

 

[guyabano]

I'm tired of this thread. I get the feeling, I talk to a wall.

I honestly didn't see any muslim who would maybe just say 'Yes, maybe there is something true in evolution'

Out of this thread, I gain some new knowlegde, for sure, that there cannot exist mulsim biologists and chemists as they all think, that is the work of Satan, God or its Voodoo when cells split or mutate under a microscope.

So far

 

[جوري]

I don't know if this may be useful, as I'm no biology expert. But I have read recently that, regardless of mutation or lacktherof, genetic traits developed after birth are never inherited; your children obly inherit your original blueprint, your genetic code at birth.

As I'm led to believe, Natural Selection proceeds not because an organism adapts directly to its environment, but because only those members with beneficial genes survive. So the least fit members of a species are weeded out. In this manner, the species slowly "changes" to one better suited to its environment. This does not mean that mutations do not occur, it just means that unless you are born with the mutation, it is not inherited.

this thread has been answered here many times..
a few points because I don't want to get into this or give it more than it is worth!
1- there are indeed sporadic mutations
2- there are de novo mutations
3- there are inherited mutations
4- there are Trinucleotide repeat expansion such as myotonic dystrophy, Fragile X syndrome, Huntington's Chorea and many others who not only (don't get weeded out but continue to get worst with each successive generation) you may read up about them from a simple google search, this defies the very basic concept of natural selction.. of being weeded out because they are better suited for the environment!
No mutation known to us causes anything but a truncated protein, sometime no change at all ( with silent mutations).. sometimes diseases or cancer.. adaptation yes...but not speciation!
it is easy to accept some scientific theories, and be thought of as an illuminati, it is much more rewarding to be the pioneer who looks at it all together, bring questions to the table and thus defy "conventional wisdom" or theory substitution when there are so many holes un patched!

peace!

 

[CptSunbeam]

Like I said, I'm no expert, but I did not say that mutations are not inherited, I said that acquired mutations are not inherited. I believe the diseases you referred to are heritable via sex chromosomes, are they not? Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.

And yes I agree, "speciation" has been ill-defined. As with anything poorly defined, it is not possible to properly assess the evidence for it. One thing that is not in question is that individual species adapt to their environment, all wothout God's help. Even without mutation it is reasoable to conclude that those with beneficial "adaptations" will survive over and above the others. No one will deny that, whether you believe in "speciation" or not. Interestingly, this adaptive mechanism will cause a species to slowly chane into one better suited to its environment. Will it ever become a new species? Don't ask me...