Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.
..but not yours?Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.
Whew! Thank you, that makes life so much easier.Don't try to understand this. It is beyond your reach.
I have a fascination with maths and design.Yes, EricPH cannot understand this.
True.Whew! Thank you, that makes life so much easier.
Don't try, don't try. Life is so easier without trying to understand - like Wil said. I understand your problem, it is not my problem.,Do you understand the enormity of the problem?
What a cop out .. fingers in the ears .. la la la.Don't try, don't try. Life is so easier without trying to understand..
That would be blazing fast, cells that multiply by splitting take a bit longer than 1 second.You have an interest in Maths, take it this way. If a cell bifurcates in 1 second, how many total cells will be there in 10 minutes?
Calculate and let us know.![]()
Quantity and speed is not the problem. Producing new cells, and new mutations then organizing a trillion cells into all the body parts is the real problem.You have an interest in Maths, take it this way. If a cell bifurcates in 1 second, how many total cells will be there in 10 minutes?
Calculate and let us know.![]()
I was only repeating what Wil said.What a cop out .. fingers in the ears .. la la la.![]()
Checked. Cell division is not so fast. It takes 10/15 hours for human cells to divide. Further more, after 40 or 50 divisions, the cells die. Even then, if you start with a single cell (Zygote), it will have trillions of cells at the end of 9 months.Quantity and speed is not the problem. Producing new cells, and new mutations then organizing a trillion cells into all the body parts is the real problem.
Why do you term it as contrary? Even if a cell complete the division in 12 hours, it is not creating a new human. It is adding organs and capabilities.At some point, creatures / life began using sex to procreate...which seems contrary to evolution, in that sex is a bit more complicated than "bifurcating" and requires a good bit more time to mature.
Because sex is added complexity that is not required for single celled creatures to procreate.Why do you term it (*sex) as contrary?
??? Regardless, cell division is for procreation at the cellular level.Even if a cell complete the division in 12 hours, it is not creating a new human. It is adding organs and capabilities.
Regardless, it is added complexity that flies in the face of entropy and atrophy.Sex is simple in itself even if there is no penetration, like in case of salmon, the eggs are fertilized. And once their evolutionary purpose is over, the fish die.
View attachment 3918
But for every species that require male, female and penetration, how is this possible. Supposing the male bits develop first, but if there is no female with all her bits, there will be no next generation.Sex is simple in itself even if there is no penetration
That is no problem. A 50 year-old can impregnate a 15 year-old (or vice-versa).But for every species that require male, female and penetration, how is this possible. Supposing the male bits develop first, but if there is no female with all her bits, there will be no next generation.
What matters to evolution is only that the species survive. How it comes about is of no concern.Because sex is added complexity that is not required for single celled creatures to procreate.
It is estimated by some that the entire human body is replicated over the course of about 7 years, in other words every 7 years you are a new you - every cell will have been replaced.
And yet there is parthenogenesis:
Virgin birth is so much simpler...except every creature would be female. There would be no need whatsoever for males.
Which comes back around to there being more to reality than the physical alone...
Yes, but the quote continues:What matters to evolution is only that the species survive. How it comes about is of no concern.
That is correct and OK. What helps is that the neurones are not replaced. That is why evolution put in 86 billion of them in a human body.
Yeah, Parthenogenesis is OK in many species. Though in humans, it reportedly created an individual with abnormalities.
"Scientists believe that an unfertilised egg began to self-divide but then had some (but not all) of its cells fertilised by a sperm cell; this must have happened early in development, as self-activated eggs quickly lose their ability to be fertilised. The unfertilised cells eventually duplicated their DNA, boosting their chromosomes to 46. When the unfertilised cells hit a developmental block, the fertilised cells took over and developed that tissue. The boy had asymmetrical facial features and learning difficulties but was otherwise healthy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Humans
emphasis mine, -jt3This would make him a parthenogenetic chimera (a child with two cell lineages in his body).[110] While over a dozen similar cases have been reported since then (usually discovered after the patient demonstrated clinical abnormalities), there have been no scientifically confirmed reports of a non-chimeric, clinically healthy human parthenote (i.e. produced from a single, parthenogenetic-activated oocyte).[109]
Yes, no confirmed scientific report of non-chimeric birth.Yes, but the quote continues: