Evolution and Genes

Males get a penis isn't that enough? Males also get this junk DNA too? Sounds unfair...

No, it does not. I told you, Desert Whiptail lizards don't require a male. There is no female sperm involved at all. It's just a female lizard undergoing parthogenesis.



Which would be the woman, whose womb directly acts on the developing fetus and shapes the fingerprints and footprints of the developing fetus, possibly amongst other things. If anything, the female puts far more effort into creating life than a male does, because not only does she provide an egg that has far more contents than the sperm actually provides (DNA, cytoplasm, organelles and mitochondria compared to just the DNA of the sperm), she also has to incubate the fetus in her womb, the environment of which affects the development of the fetus. She provides nutrients, her womb helps shape a fetus's fingerprints, it does far more than a single Y chromsome ever does.



Rubbish. The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. All biological cells are by definition alive. If they were dead, they would be of no use to us. No life is derived, because both the things that came together to form a fetus were alive to begin with.



No, it isn't. We can clearly see that it isn't by looking at your posts and seeing how you go from one specious argument to another. What did your original "Y chromosome is solely responsible for evolution" comment have to do with what life really is? You're fixated on the idea of the Y chromosome and are trying to, for some unfathomable reason, elevate it to levels of importance to fit in with your beliefs.



Higher and lower refers only to the position of a species on the "Tree of Life", Linnaeus' branched classification system. It does not refer to an species' superiority. If it is inferior, it is by defintion, either in decline or extinct.

Only Creationists believe that mankind is higher than other animals.

I'd also like to point out that your second question does not follow from your first and that it is rather confusing to put them together.

Did the dinosaurs "breath" the same air we do? Just because the physical part is in our junk DNA does not mean automatically that the life is the exact same.

Does life exist within a set of parameters or does the physical world exist due to the presence of life. Chicken or egg...

Is X the propose of Y or Y the purpose of X? Energy equals mass just as life equals the physical biology. They are echoes of creation. Light is both a wave and a particle. Light is both and egg and a seed.



You see, this is why I object to your points. You know nothing about basic biology and yet you insist on stating things authoritatively as if you know everything. Furthermore, I've told you some of the following information before, but your above paragraph shows that you have either ignored me or are just unwilling to learn.

A sperm can only transmit one X chromosome or one Y chromosome. It cannot transmit two sex chromsomes. Sperm with two sex chromosomes are by definition abnormal and do not function properly enough to fertilise an egg. In addition, a man cannot use two of his X chromosomes because, as I've told you before, a male genome more often than not, only contains one X chromosome.

This, RexRed, is basic biology.

There are males out there who have more than one X chromosome, but they are rare and because they have more than one X chromosome in their genome, they suffer from a disorder called Kleinfelter's disorder which more often than not renders the subject infertile.

A female on the other hand can create a female without the need for a Y chromosome, as I have told you before. That is because a female has two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome. The Desert Grassland Whiptail lizard, Aspidoscelis uniparens, which I've mentioned before, manages to create female offspring without the need for a male and therefore without the need for a Y chromosome.



That is not arrogance. It is practical. We call it junk, because we don't know the function. Once we know the function, it ceases to be called junk.

What is arrogant, however, is claiming that because we don't know how something could have happened, some deity must be responsible. That is the Creationist and ID position, your position.

It's not arrogant. It's practical politics.

No, it's just politics.

Are you saying that a belief in a deity has been impractical?

Downright devastating!

I must admit c.i. that I have no arguments against those who think this whole caboodle is one big mistake. It is possible to work with the flints and fire. We know that because it has been done.

Some say it is a verdant idyll and seek it on camping trips with the mobile phone in attendance. It could be where the word "phoney" derives from. I don't know. I'm not a lingualologist.

I suppose the $25,000 Mr Bush is saying each American will have to stump up, those who can he must mean, which means it might be more for the rest, to save the theory, as they say, that financial matters can be organised in a Darwinian fashion, might well come round to yearning for a simpler way of life. It is a bit of a pisser I'll grant.

Yes it has.

Kurt Wise is an example where his belief trumped science. He is reported as having taken a pair of scissors and cut out everything in the Bible that contradicts what science tells us. In the end, he stated, he was left with so little that he had to choose. And he chose God instead and went against a career in geology. That is impractical. Instead of furthering one's knowledge, Kurt Wise is adamant in holding on to a belief, even if "all the evidence in the universe turns against" it.

Mr ODonnell, (I can't bring myself to call you Wolf as I'm sure you are quite a pleasant chap.)

If ever you need to prove that you don't understand this subject there it is.

Have you any idea where and how the aptly named Mr Wise was conceived.

Mr Wise's absence from this world is not something we could not have afforded to miss.

And then there's his upbringing which must have been a bit odd to say the least if he ended up performing the fatuous ritual you have described him doing.

I wouldn't wish to be seen building a scientific conclusion on such a remote possibility. Not after the string of "science" lessons you have winged in my direction.

c.i.-

What's the inside script on this bank collapse over where you are?

So pleasant chaps shouldn't be referred to by their first names?



You asked whether a belief in God has ever been impractical. I gave you an example.



Spendius, this is why I dislike your posts. Your posts are always confusing and I'm unsure as to whether you set out to deliberately make them confusing or not. In the above example, you gave us a double negative. Very confusing.

I take it you mean that Mr. Wise's absence would be something we could afford to miss.

How so? Don't you think it is rather impractical that we have one less capable scientist working on real scientific issues, that instead of a real scientist, we have a Creationist intent on spreading propaganda?

But, of course not. You've shown nothing but disdain for science in your constant posts in a "Science and Mathematics" forum. At least, you've never seemed to display anything but disdain, whether intentional or not.

I have no disdain for science.

Some of those who claim to speak in its name are another matter. I question their motives.

Science has no motives. It is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and is thus a form of play.

The idea that cutting up the Bible on the basis of what contradicts science is fatuous and to offer what one person has done, whose presence in the world was a very chancy affair, to justify that belief systems are impractical matches it in fatuity.

Belief systems are self-evidently practical. They only become impractical when in competition with a superior belief system. That a system of unbelief should set itself forth to contradict this evolved process seems an odd thing to do for an evolutionist.

Evolution theory is in a little box pretending that human social organisation doesn't exist and those who claim its superiority are cogs in a human social organistion.

Game theory is correct I believe but humans don't live by it.

spendi, It's a lot more than a form of play. It's about progress and economics; increasing the standard of living, better health, and "progress."

The word "progress" rears its head.

Evolution knows no such thing. The whole idea of progress is a Christian one of the highest order.



Karl Kraus.

Progress is a superstition says Professor John Gray. And that science enables human beings to satisfy their needs but it does nothing to change them.



he says.

Was it progress to develop agriculture to replace hunter-gathering?

That's an interesting question.

Mathos of Brit in the Orient fame spends much money and time searching out a vague semblence of Paleolithic life and trying to imitate Tarzan. It's what Deliverance was all about and all these trips to the wilderness.

Is "one hand waving free", which is all Dylan thinks is possible, not really enough? Is freedom that powerful?

You talk in the name of evolution but you live in the here and now.

Your use of the word is entirely subjective. Which means you use it how you choose to.

You know nothing about science any more than a lady who has just had her hair done knows about the processes involved. Excluding the religious ones I mean.

Rubbish. Science is the interested pursuit of knowledge. People who work as research scientists are genuinely interested in their work, generally interested in what they find and discuss their findings with others.



Fine. You want another example?

A belief in God made anatomical study of the human body an impossibility for a very long time, even during the Islamic "golden age", because it was believed that the human body was a gift from God that should not be defiled. You call this practical? Not knowing more about human anatomy?

And don't forget Galileo, whose views and research was actively suppressed due to an erroneous belief in a God who created a geocentric universe.



Rubbish. They are highly impractical, because people are loathe to give up their belief system.

Creationism is a very good example of this.



Human beings aren't supposed to live by any scientific theory and evolution theory is no exception. It makes no special claim. No one is saying you should live by it, but you assume people do and have actively advocated that children should be lied to stop them from believing that evolution is a belief system that should be followed (which in itself is a lie).

There, is of course a much simpler way around this and that is to teach children that scientific theories are explanations of how things are, not how things should be. That would solve your non-existent problem, but no, instead, you wish for students to be taught a lie.

How is that teaching them critical thinking, Spendi?

Oh, wait, no, that's right, your version of ID has nothing to do with ID at all and only shares the same name so you can cynically derail a topic to discuss what you want to discuss and still seem to remain on topic so as not to get in trouble with the Admins.

Good grief Mr ODonnell. Do you not know what disinterested means yet? It has nothing to do with lack of interest.

The rest of your post is, in my view, unmitigated drivel. I hope those who don't find it to be are many so that the competition is suitably reassured and continues to present few problems.

Unmitigated drivel? That's rich coming from someone who does nothing but post unmitigated drivel in the hope that nobody will notice.

You missed out the expression "in my view" as usual and thus prove that your command of English expression is as inadequate as your understanding of the meaning of some simple and widely used words.

I was referring to this sentence, Spendi:



Once again you're being utterly condescending to those who don't agree with your worldview. Not only are you condescending, but more importantly, you fail to back up any of your heavily assertion laden comments.

Admittedly, up to this point, I've never actually come across the word, disinterested, and got it confused with uninterested. So I apologise for that certain misunderstanding.

But frankly, I don't think your phrase "in my view" really does anything to make your position anymore tenable. The irony is still there.

The position "that is bullshit" and "that is, in my view, bullshit" are miles apart. The former is condescending. It has an air of infallibility. It brooks no opposition. The latter is simply a statement of fact. What my view is.

I could be persuaded to change my view.