What do you think of this counter to evolution?

Question

Without a creator how did protien cells automatically get the idea to create organisms that have s*x to reproduce rather than split apart? They just came up with the idea to make a man and a woman automatically? It is very ignorant to assume that a bunch of micro-organisms would be able to come up with something so adapt, this way of reproducing must have been devinely inspired. Give me your take on the subject.

Answer 1

At the risk of sounding geeky:

Humans are much too complex to divide by "budding". There are simply too many kinds of cells to make, and you would walk around with a half of a person hanging off you at all times. Say people did reproduce like this. A loooong time ago, like say, caveman times. there was some freak, who was able to have children like this. And he had kids budding off of him in all directions. (im oversimplifying this, i don't know why). But, anyway, the tribe of cavemen goes off hunting a woolly mammoth. and the mammoth charges the cavemen, and most are able to run away. Except for the freak with babies all over him. He gets trampled. And his genes are erased from the gene pool.

Also, When Bacteria divide, they create almost identical copies of themselves. Now if that caveman had successfully made hundreds of little cavemen, they would all have very similar genes to him. If he was susceptible to some disease, or had asthma, or something like that, all the other little cavemen would probably have it too. And they would be at a much higher risk of dying.

The whole point of Evolution is that if you get some trait from your parents that makes you die easily (cant run fast, only one lung, your head is located up your butt or whatever), you will most likely die before you have children. It is not so prominent today, due to all the medical technologies, but it is still happening.

wow, i really rambled on there.

Answer 2

They still can't answer where hydrogen and the cells came from in the first place. At some time in "evolution" there has to be a beginning... so when did nothing produce something.

They can't and won't answer that. They argue, they insult... but in the end when they finally realize ooops, God exists! It might be too late. Then we can say, "told you so."

Answer 3

You're going to have to study harder than that before you start making assumptions about what evolution would and wouldn't do.  Some plants have a reproductive cycle which alternates between mitosis and meiosis.  Vascular plants like ferns are a good example, producing meiotic seeds and mitotic spores in turn.  Meiosis is an excellent evolutionary advantage, as the recombination of genes allows the diversification of a species as a rule instead of by mutation alone; faster diversification means more chance of making it through an environmental change.

You don't seem to understand how natural selection works.  Microorganisms do not 'come up with' anything on their own.  Rather, the microorganisms that happen to have a particular trait survive to reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation.  Those that lack optimal features die.  In fact, I find it hard to believe that an intelligent designer would let so many species go extinct if he had the option of simply creating perfect species.

Answer 4

The evolution of s*x is a major puzzle in evolutionary biology.  No one knows exactly how s*x evolved, but some hypotheses have been made.

You can find them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o...

That is not a counter to evolution, because we don't need to know how everything evolved to know that evolution happens.  That's like saying you think gravity is wrong because you don't know how gravity works near black holes.  Scientists have found thousands of concrete examples of evolution happening, and that is more than enough evidence to make it a solid scientific fact.

Also, God is not the default explanation.  Just because we don't know the reason for something doesn't mean God is reposinsible for it.  If you don't know something, you just don't know, and you can't make up a reason for it.  There is nothing special about the God explanation.  It needs proof before you can accept it, just like any other theory.

Answer 5

The creation of man was not an "idea", it was the result of millions of years of evolution.  The whole concept of evolution is that the organisms we see today has GRADUALLY came to be through millions of years of adaptations, natural selection, and reproduction.  

Cells did not automatically get the "idea" to reproduce sexually as opposed to asexually.  There are lots of cells that DO produce asexually, in fact.  It happened like this:  there were cells that produced asexually, and cells that produced sexually.  Those that produced sexually had the advantage of genetic recombination --> better chance of survival, and thus, better chance of passing on its GENES.

So, the statement "It is very ignorant to assume that a bunch of micro-organisms would be able to come up with something so adapt" has obviously been made by a very IGNORANT person.  Maybe you should pay closer attention in your bio class.

Answer 6

I think most of that is just primal instinct. I always love the idea that evolutionists have no clue as to what came first:the protein or the dna.

All creationists know this answer, yet the "experts" on the matter have no clue.

Answer 7

wowwo you obviously know so little about evolution I do not know where to begin.Bacteria come up with an idea ? ..Rather than attack evolution fo by the now routinely dimissed , disbelief due to personal uncredulity...why not prove that cerationsin is real and get in published in a scientific journal and receive the Nobvel Prize...you think  ti shard to evolve to even our level of intelligence   think about what are the odds that there is a perfect omnipotent being ...what or who created him?  what are those odds ? Be a scientist show me YOUR FACTS, your evidence  not smoke screens or strawmen

Answer 8

Well only organisms in the animal and plant kingdom reproduce by having a female and a male part. Fungi reproduce with spores and single celled organisms divide. Through adaption and evolution cells got more complex in time eventually there was somehow there was a female and male part but I dont know really I just want the points.

Answer 9

Jonas, your question about the origins of sexual reproduction by single-celled organisms is a very reasonable one, and deserves a good answer.

But you ruin it when you say things like "It is very ignorant to assume that a bunch of micro-organisms would be able to come up with something so adapt."   When you're 14, and have barely taken even the basics of 10th-grade biology, it makes you sound foolish to say that an opinion held by hundreds of thousands of the world's scientists, who have each spent *careers* studying biology, is "ignorant."

In other words, it is actually possible to present an argument against evolution, or ask a sincere question, without calling people "ignorant."    It might actually get you a bit less hostility in return.

Or another way to put it ... you don't get to tell people they are "ignorant" for accepting a central idea of modern science ... and then hide behind the "I'm only 14" shield.  

The answer to your question is that evolution is about nature constantly, relentlessly choosing the mutations that are *slightly* better at survival.  Period.   If it provides, some advantage, then that is good enough.  Sexual reproduction offers an advantage (every new offspring is slightly different from its parents, and so the organism as a *species* is better able to survive changes to its environment, or explore new environments.

And, as others have pointed out, you don't have to have males and females to have sexual reproduction.

The mistake you are clealy making is that even though you are only 14 years old, you have already decided that the overhwelming majority of scientists in the world are completely utterly *WRONG* about one of the foundational theories of modern biology.

Show some humility.   At least wait until you have studied it ... and studied it fairly ... before making up your mind one way or the other.   In other words, you should be able to say you understand *WHY* the scientists accept evolution as overwhelmingly as they do.   If you think they are just stupid, then you are being dishonest with yourself.

Understanding *BEFORE* belief.   That's how science works!

Good luck.

Answer 10

Proteins don't decide nor do they act alone.  DNA controls how the protein is made and selection pressure determines which DNA will increase in numbers.  s*x took billions of years to evolve.  It require using chromosomes to more efficiently manage the DNA.  The reason it evolved is because it is much more efficient from an evolutionary perspective.  It allowed all the species of a particular organism to share all beneficial mutations rather than having all beneficial mutation have to occur in a single lineage.

Answer 11

It's pretty amazing isn't it?

Anyway, most people have covered the basics of it.

But I thought I'd add that, as fantastic as it sounds that microorganisms have s*x,  what's really cool is that there are real examples of microorganisms that have s*x.  However, most of these don't have male and female distinctions (at least not in the sense we think about it).  It's not so complicated when any gamete can merge with another gamete (you don't need a male gamete plus a female gamete, it's just a neuter plus a neuter).

Male and female are just really specializations of two reproductive strategies that evolved in tandem (co-evolution):

1. Some individuals produced large numbers of gametes (quantity over quality)

2. Others produced fewer, high quality gametes (quality over quantity)

Evolution and extreme specialization eventually led to one needing the other.  From a natural selection standpoint, it's far more advantageous to have 1+2 than have some unspecialized strategy - the advantage of a division of labour.

I personally find it much more beautiful if there was a creator, that he had this all in mind (like an invisible hand to quote Adam Smith).  But that's a matter of opinion.

Answer 12

No, it must not have been divinely inspired. Microorganisms exchange genetic material all the time.

What do you think of this counter to creationism:

who made god?

Upstairs god?

So who made Upstairs god?

Big overlord sky god?

Well who made big overlord sky god

etc

Creationism explains NOTHING, it just pushes the whole question under the mat.