• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthy Offspring Created Without Female Egg

the_recruit said:
Then you don't buy into evolution.
Click to expand...

I think giraffes with shorter necks died out because they couldn't get enough food to stay alive. That fact isn't some random thing, but a fact that the leaves were too high.
 
Henrin said:
I think giraffes with shorter necks died out because they couldn't get enough food to stay alive. That fact isn't some random thing, but a fact that the leaves were too high.
Click to expand...

Did you actually make an effort to understand what I wrote? I don't dispute any of this. But nowhere does it imply purpose. A rock rolls down a hill because of gravity. This doesn't mean gravity has a purpose and it's to roll rocks down hills.
 
the_recruit said:
Did you actually make an effort to understand what I wrote? I don't dispute any of this. But nowhere does it imply purpose. A rock rolls down a hill because of gravity. This doesn't mean gravity has a purpose and it's to roll rocks down hills.
Click to expand...

Actually, it kind of does dispute your argument. You argued it was completely random that those traits formed, but quite clearly the example you also provided shows that is not the case.
 
Henrin said:
Actually, it kind of does dispute your argument. You argued it was completely random that those traits formed, but quite clearly the example you also provided shows that is not the case.
Click to expand...

That isn't my position. I was speaking of the mutations that produce those traits. They are random, not intentional. Besides, I explicitly stated how evolution selects for the long neck.


But that isn't purpose. It's a mindless force of nature. Like a hurricane. A hurricane doesn't intend to knock over trees. It doesn't have a purpose. It just does what it does. For no purpose. With no intention. Evolution is no different.
 
the_recruit said:
That isn't my position. I was speaking of the mutations that produce those traits. They are random, not intentional. Besides, I explicitly stated how evolution selects for the long neck.


But that isn't purpose. It's a mindless force of nature. Like a hurricane. A hurricane doesn't intend to knock over trees. It doesn't have a purpose. It just does what it does. For no purpose. With no intention. Evolution is no different.
Click to expand...

There is frogs that due to high estrogen levels in the environment have become asexual and according to you that was random and not something that will quite literally happen every time under those conditions.
 
Henrin said:
There is frogs that due to high estrogen levels in the environment have become asexual and according to you that was random and not something that will quite literally happen every time under those conditions.
Click to expand...

Henrin. Natural selection is selective. It is not random. I am not portraying it as random. I am portraying it as purpose-less. Stop misconstruing my position.
 
the_recruit said:
Henrin. Natural selection is selective. It is not random. I am not portraying it as random. I am portraying it as purpose-less. Stop misconstruing my position.
Click to expand...

It obviously is not selective. Is anything known in science selective in the returns you will get from conditions in place? No. In Chemistry for example if you add certain elements together you will always get the same return. It's not just going to selectively give you something different for some goofy reason.
 
Henrin said:
It obviously is not selective.
Click to expand...

You are just being obtuse now. Natural SELECTION is a selective process. A huge range of genetic mutations occur during cell replication and evolution filters out - or selects for (gasp!)- certain mutations.

Henrin said:
Is anything known in science selective in the returns you will get from conditions in place? No. In Chemistry for example if you add certain elements together you will always get the same return. It's not just going to selectively give you something different for some goofy reason.
Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about....
 
the_recruit said:
You are just being obtuse now. Natural SELECTION is a selective process. A huge range of genetic mutations occur during cell replication and evolution filters out - or selects for (gasp!)- certain mutations.
Click to expand...

I'm not being obtuse at all actually. Those genetic mutations all happened due to conditions that were in place that when put together lead to result you see. This all points to the fact that sexual organs developing in humans wasn't just random like you said it was earlier.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not being obtuse at all actually. Those genetic mutations all happened due to conditions that were in place that when put together lead to result you see. This all points to the fact that sexual organs developing in humans wasn't just random like you said it was earlier.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to ask you to stop arguing against positions I don't hold. The development of sexual organs in humans wasn't random. It was a result of natural selection. Evolution is not a random process. How many times do I need to state that? Do you need me to use larger font? A brighter color maybe? With underline?

Do you understand the difference between "is a result of physics" and "has a purpose"?
 
the_recruit said:
How many times do I have to ask you to stop arguing against positions I don't hold. The development of sexual organs in humans wasn't random. It was a result of natural selection. Evolution is not a random process. How many times do I need to state that? Do you need me to use larger font? A brighter color maybe? With underline?

Do you understand the difference between "is a result of physics" and "has a purpose"?
Click to expand...

You said it was random and then retracted the argument. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
You said it was random and then retracted the argument. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Stop being pedantic. I've repeatedly and explicitly told you I was speaking of DNA mutations during replication. These mutations that occur during cell replication are universally characterized by evolutionary scientists as "random". Just like a coin flip is considered "random". It's a consequence of minute physics that is not possible for us to predict in any reliable way.

And I've repeatedly and explicitly stated that evolution is not a random process. It is selective. It is a filter. Certain traits pass through the filter, others are eliminated. And this is not random. How can I be any more clear on this point?

And I've repeatedly and explicitly pointed out this does not amount to "purpose". Which is the entire point that I've been making here and you've been desperately trying to steer away from. Evolution supposes there is no purpose to our biology. If you reject this, you reject the theory of evolution.
 
Henrin said:
What purpose do women have if two men can have children?
Click to expand...

Assuming you actually found a woman willing to put up with you, do you consider her nothing more than a breeding machine that you will cast aside as soon as you can procreate with men?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Assuming you actually found a woman willing to put up with you, do you consider her nothing more than a breeding machine that you will cast aside as soon as you can procreate with men?
Click to expand...

Lol no. I was just saying that scientifically speaking they have no other reason to exist.
 
Henrin said:
Lol no. I was just saying that scientifically speaking they have no other reason to exist.
Click to expand...

Scientifically women do not exist to have babies. They just exist. Because forces of nature have caused them to exist. Forces of nature have not caused them to exist for some purpose. Evolution is mindless; it cannot have purposes or intentions. Stop projecting human characteristics onto evolution.
 
Jane said:
?? I meant primary source(s). I don't consider //www.seeker.com// to be that.
Click to expand...

Well, no it's not a primary source. If you want technical details, you won't find them there.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, no it's not a primary source. If you want technical details, you won't find them there.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be tendentious here. Or maybe I am. :) Anyway, most secondary sources or tertiary or whatever, refer to the source of their story with a link. So, in matter of science, you'll usually find a link to the journal where the item they're discussing was reported. It's not a "highbrow" thing; it's a journalism thing.
 
Jane said:
Not trying to be tendentious here. Or maybe I am. :) Anyway, most secondary sources or tertiary or whatever, refer to the source of their story with a link. So, in matter of science, you'll usually find a link to the journal where the item they're discussing was reported. It's not a "highbrow" thing; it's a journalism thing.
Click to expand...

Good point. You would expect there to be some links.
 
Henrin said:
The sexes wouldn't even exist without the need to make babies. :shrug: You're pretty much getting mad at nature at this point.
Click to expand...

well ones that are not clones sex took off becase it increased diversity faster then copying yourself
 
Human fertility treatment?

Like the planet needs to increase birth rates?

I don't think so.
 
Henrin said:
And those children will be nothing more than test tube babies. Don't we already have enough of them running around? Do we really need more ways to create children? If they want children they already have functional organs to do that.
Click to expand...

Do we really need more laws to enforce your moral code?
 
DA60 said:
Human fertility treatment?

Like the planet needs to increase birth rates?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

"If you can't have children, go **** yourself."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom