Just ask how organisms can occur in pairs if they evolved.
An organism can never evolve as one of a pair, for it will be incapable of surviving by itself without the services of the complementary pair, nor does it know about its complementary pair.
Else you have to acknowledge factors external to the organism which plan things at a higher level.
2007-06-13 21:19:55 · 9 answers · asked by Karoly 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Your logic is flawed in that you assume heirarchy where none exists. You have neither proved, nor disproved anything, as most intelligent design theorists do...
2007-06-13 21:24:06 · answer #1 · answered by Matthew L 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are asking the wrong question, with the wrong intent. Instead, concentrate on finding the truth. If you learn about evolution, you will learn that most of it is true, rigorous science. You'll also find outlandish claims not supported by science.
Even if we eventually discover that sexual reproduction came about through some evolutionary process, that would not contradict anything in the Bible. Genesis is not a science text, and was not intended to be.
For a balanced, reasoned approach to these issues, see the reference. The author is a respected scientist, head of the Human Genome Project.
2007-06-14 15:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by Frank N 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is a theory and its problem lies with the jump from single cell to complex. It's very hard to explain with DNA how a jump is possible.
As far as your pair question. You wouldn't need two of the same organism to have evolution through natural slection since it is based on the gens of one animal.
Natural selection is very easy to prove and support because we can recreate the conditions but the simple cell jump can be reproduced or proven.
2007-06-14 04:27:00 · answer #3 · answered by triquetra1754 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are organisms which do not reproduce sexually. They don't occur in pairs. A single organism simply duplicates itself.
Additionally, you can't disprove evolution wrong because we have watched it happen, and MADE it happen. When we breed dogs or horses or cows for specific traits, that's artificial selection. Natural selection is the same thing, except instead of humans making the decisions on which animals get to breed, it's random environmental factors making the decision.
Creationism is not science.
2007-06-14 04:25:35 · answer #4 · answered by lithiumdeuteride 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I know initially Lord Calvin rejected this theory by saying that the temperature requirement was not enough for such development. I am ot sure if this has been proven wrong, but still it is an subject to go and explore for your answer.
2007-06-14 09:12:54 · answer #5 · answered by lefinia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go and read up on evolution before you presume to declare you have proved it wrong. Then go and read up on how a scientific theory actually works and what it means before you presume you can invalidate the whole thing with one (flawed) argument.
Or just carry on being a smug creationist who can't seem to get his head around the idea that evolution and divine creation are NOT mutually exclusive.
2007-06-14 06:53:06 · answer #6 · answered by Jason T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Asexual reproduction happened first. Cells reproduce by mitosis. Sexual reproduction developed later, in more advanced living things, and still involves reproduction on a cellular level (sperm and egg). Leave it to a creationist to think they've disproven evolution, when in fact, they've completely misunderstood it.
2007-06-14 04:24:02 · answer #7 · answered by Master Maverick 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
humans will still be evolving from monkeys and for the big bang to have happend there had to be matter but, where did the matter come from for that to of happend?!
2007-06-14 04:33:56 · answer #8 · answered by Emerald Eyes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
such as aliens??? woot
2007-06-14 04:23:25 · answer #9 · answered by James 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋