NewStats: 3,265,222 , 8,186,062 topics. Date: Friday, 13 June 2025 at 10:52 PM 1g3664

udemzyudex:


You know nothing, na China dey try form boss in the end the economy go Just suffer for nothing.

You are daft.

jaxxy:


How is China immune? They grew majorly of benefiting from partnerships with the US. No other country gave them a chance like America and now they are doing well see how they behave towards America?

Major Foreign companies are banned from China but yet China wants Huawei and its other heavily state influenced companies to dominate Europe, Asia and Africa.

Is that fair trade to u?

You are daft.

jayce232:

Don't mind China
Very selfish & ungrateful country
Without the help of US, who for know China
This fight was very avoidable

Daft.

Focusmind:
China made a very big mistake in retaliating. There was no need fighting with Trump, knowing that China has been benefiting, disproportionately in her trade with US. Xi will put China into recession because of unnecessary fight. He should have swallowed his pride and allowed Trump be, so long China was still on top of international trade. You are fighting with your biggest trading partner, where you control 75% of trade between two of you. Xi no try at all. I forsee a 200% increase in coming weeks, as Xi try to match up with Trump's madness

Daft.

foleskay:

Leave story. U thinks it's by accident the dollars became the global currency?? USA is by far the most technologcally advanced country in the world. Copy that.

I am not sure that is still the case.

"Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World's Markets" . . . .

The above quote is evidence of psychiatric illness

descarado:
Macron is busy chasing Trump. Only tinubu dey romance that man for whatever reason.

They probably have secret corrupt deals together

azadus18:
Hausa the most speaking indigenous language in sub Saharan Africa

I beleive that honour goes to Swahili

eteba:
It was the supreme court that vacated the LG chairmen, not the Sole .

Alright thanks for that information. However does the SA have the powers to appoint s for the LGs?

Peacecore:
Some of u comment as if u just come out from bush which elected LG chairmen did he suspend?

Hang on. Are you saying there were no LG Councils in place?
Mind you, that will be different from saying they are stymied by legal proceedings in courts.

Jakumo:


Haha, those technologically inferior aliens might still be struggling to invent their first bicycle, so to meet those species, Elon Musk will need to send his spaceships further afield. Considering how hated Elon Musk is in America and the EU right now, there is likely to be jubilation if it is announced that Elon might ride one of his rockets into space on an exploratory mission, possibly and hopefully of no return.

Jakumo:


Speculation is that alien technology from beyond our planet could be hundreds, if not thousands, of years more advanced than current human technology, so I wonder sometimes what would happen if aliens decided to test a human military's capability one day haha

that we could also be considered "highly advanced" aliens to some other species somewhere in the universe.

Madness writ large.

How did the Sole derive powers to also suspend democratically elected local governments?

Jakumo:


I doubt whether the need for war will ever go away. As long as there are men in power who are greedy and reckless like Russia's Putin, whose war will soon have consumed over one million soldiers, the need for armaments will remain.

Not to speak of the need to be prepared against extra terrestrial threats.

KGREAT:

Foolish man.

Ah. Trump Disciple.
Evening.

Have you taken Trump Communion today?

Where are the Trump Church Disciples who will come to preach how Volkswagen must bow down and accept Trump as their personal lord and savior?

PressMyButton:
They say he has been abandoned in Aso rock, meanwhile, he has been traveling from country to country representing Mr President. He just got back from Senegal from where he attended the country's anniversary, before then, he was in Dubai. Those losers trying to create division between him and his boss, where there's none. Their propaganda is falling flat on its face. And whether you like it or not, Shettima will be VP till 2031.


After God, na Tinubu 💪 God bless Nigeria

How much do you get monthly for this? Is it enough for petrol in your gen?

SalamRushdie:


This is beyond your brain grade so rest

You are probably a teenager.

SalamRushdie:
Trump will bankrupt China if they continue

You must be a joker. Olodo
Capital olodo.

wirinet:

We have been friends too long on this platform to start trading jibes at each other over differences of opinion.
Here is a concise Wikipedia article on evolution of sexual reproduction. I have not been able to read it myself, but it contains all questions and misunderstandings you might have -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

My dear I understand you might not have had time to go through the thread from years ago I shared with you. This link you have provided and many others, I provided there - years ago.

What you need to understand is that that the evolution of sexual reproduction is a genuinely thorny subject in evolutionary science. Dont take my word for it, research. It is something that professors of microbiology still struggle with - and thus it is not a matter of one being ignorant of evolution for one to raise it.

I apologize for my words - I felt you were being too pompous and it really tires me when people are condescending about science.

wirinet:

I am still at loss as to what you are talking about. Let me ask you one question; do amphibians like toad that just sit on the back of its female as its form of sex have complete reproductive system?

What of plants? Is the movement of male sex gamete to female ones by external factors such as insects or wind complete systems?

Reproductive systems are wide and varied - from simple ones to more complex systems.

It's a pity you have very little knowledge of evolution, and you are making the same false assumptions religious deniers make.
Evolution does not take millions of years, micro evolution takes place between every generation. Its just that the micro evolution are usually too inconsequential to present any difference. It's hundreds or even thousands of these micro evolutions, particularly those that is beneficial to the specie that results in significant changes. This can often lead to the emergence of whole new species.

People with superior knowledge of evolution than you have made the same inquiries I am making.
As for the rest of your post, if you cannot see the very simple issue raised, I have to leave it.

Personally, I think on this matter, you are full of hot air and very shallow thought.

Botragelad:

Haha. Wow, fantastic. A concentration camp with a growing Muslim population or a genocide where Muslims somehow still manage to breathe? 🤣🤣

Seriously, was the October 7 massacre really worth it?

That it was not worth it does not justify this imperialistic Colonial Apartheid evil.

wirinet:


Reproduction as defined by biology is a system of self replication.

Reproduction as defined by biology is fundamentally a system of self-replication, meaning organisms create copies of themselves, ensuring the continuation of species and ing on genetic information. So I don't understand what you mean by successful reproduction.

As I said reproductive systems evolved from simple cell division - mitosis to complex reproductive systems involving defined sex organs and sex. Some animals possess both sex organs while most higher organisms have just one. Some mutations allow people to possess both sex organs.

Let me break this down.

1. In organisms that engage in sexual reproduction, the systems for such reproduction will have to be complete and complimentary in both sexes for any such reproduction to occur.

2. It is argued by evolutionists that the evolution of such systems takes millions of years.

3. During those "millions of years" how was the organism carrying on it's reproduction so as to arrive at the completeness of the very systems that it would have needed to reproduce and evolve during that same period?

Are we clear now?

FiveFootNinja:


Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty.

Personally, I'm not too deep in the field of natural sciences so I can't claim full understanding of the ToE. I was bred in the social sciences, so I'll probably have a better shot at debating international policies and legal rights. 🤷🏽

The only gripe I have with people arguing the ToE in this religion section is that most of the time, the theory is often used as a crutch by Christians to attack atheists, and I've never understood that logic because personally I don't give a shít about the theory. It didn't lead me to become an atheist and frankly, it bores me to death.

But somehow Christians think shooting it down automatically validates their Bible stories - a very primitive type of thinking rooted in false dichotomy (an actual logical fallacy). 🤦🏽

I give the atheists a on bringing it up because at least they're rightfully juxtaposing it against the Bible's tale of creation, which sounds even more ridiculous and convoluted.



This is strictly within the realm of subjectivity, so I'm not going to argue this paragraph with you. As for me, I feel no need to accept the existence of a spiritual realm.

I will never drag an argument with someone over how he believes the universe came to be, provided he or she accepts that his belief is entirely his own belief. Where I start to heckle them is if they try to establish their beliefs as an objective truth, like the way some people do here.

Also, this is unrelated to our conversation but I just want to note how profoundly ignorant some people on this thread are that they casually take the word "power" from the axiom "knowledge is power", and equate it with physical capacity.

The same people write nonsensical faith fueled diatribes here to try and disparage the idea of having "knowledge", foolishly thinking that having knowledge doesn't have any practical real world benefits. I mean, the inherent stupidity in that statement should be self evident. Lol. 😂

You seem like a pretty flexible poster in of thought and logic, and I respect you for it. Unlike some here who are closed off from reality by their faith, and ironically think that it is a virtue worth extolling.



Well, like I said, I don't know jack shít about the ToE. I'm an atheist, not a biologist or "evolutionist" (whatever that means). Also I feel people often conflate "theory of evolution" with "evolution". Those two have different connotations.

Furthermore, I don't particularly care about the modus operandi of ToE proponents. However, a scientific theory doesn't necessarily have to be flawless for it to be plausible. Even the theory of gravity has its own problems when you go deep into quantum mechanics.



Again, I will not personally accept the idea of there being a "creator or instigator" of this world without convincing evidence. But I will respect it as your belief.

Thanks very much for this fair critique. Let me seize the opportunity to point out that religious dogma is far far worse.

I do not subscribe to the myths contained in the Bible or Quoran for this reason.

One more thing. When I say "creators or instigators" of this world, I generally mean that in a possible sense, and not in the sense that I know it for certain. I do not.

Very little about the way this world came to be can be known for certain.

As the article above is too long to be posted in entirety without being banned by the spambot, I post the conclusion.

Conclusion

Lewis Thomas, the highly regarded medical doctor who served for many years as the president and chancellor of the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, was unable to contain either his enthusiasm or his praise for the system we know as “sexual reproduction.” In his book, The Medusa and the Snail, he wrote about the “miracle” of how one sperm cell forms with one egg cell to produce the cell we know as a zygote, which, nine months later, will become a newborn human being. He concluded:

‘The mere existence of that cell should be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point after another around the whole sky, until all my money runs out.’[48]

Dr. Thomas’ money is perfectly safe. No one has been able to explain—from an evolutionary viewpoint—the origin of sex, the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself a marvel of design). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Evolutionary theorists ask us to believe that random, chance occurrences brought about this marvelously interdependent process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place via meiosis, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to re the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn. The idea that all of this “just evolved” is unworthy of consideration or acceptance, especially in light of the evidence now at hand.

The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Do make sure to go through the whole article! It is truly worthy reading!



Oh, and here is the RESUME of the writers:

Brad Harrub is a graduate of Kentucky Wesleyan College, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also earned a Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who’s Who Among Scientists and Researchers. He was an invited speaker to the 2003 International Conference on Creationism. He currently serves as the Director of Scientific Information at Apologetics Press, and as associate editor of Reason & Revelation.

Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he taught for several years. While at Texas A&M, he served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. Currently, Dr. Thompson is the Executive Director of Apologetics Press and editor of Reason & Revelation.

These gentlemen are Phd holders in Neurobiology and Microbiology.

And they write and ask questions articulated on same posers as mine.

Evolutionary Theories On Gender
And Sexual Reproduction

© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Abstract

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today. Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can for the origin and maintenance of sex.

Introduction

Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.

The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]

The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely itted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35). In his 2001 book, The Cooperative Gene, evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote (under the chapter title of “The Ultimate Existential Absurdity”):

‘Evolutionary biologists are much teased for their obsession with why sex exists. People like to ask, in an amused way, “isn’t it obvious?” Joking apart, it is far from obvious.... Sex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists.

The full and thorough work is here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

@ wirinet - You can see that this issue is not a matter of anyone not understanding evolution. Those who understand it know that this issue is a problem.

FiveFootNinja:


The theory of evolution has problems, I agree.

Do you have a stronger hypothesis or postulate that is backed up by the evidence?

It's not really about having a better theory because I accept the fundamentals of the ToE. I just acknowledge that it has unresolved issues.

Being a person who believes in the spiritual though, I am inclined to believe in some sort of guided evolution as opposed to that which is strictly limited to natural selection. That is better able to help us with something as complicated as the evolution of the eye for example.

Many times evolutionists hide behind the large expanses of time they say evolution occurs over in order to gloss over things that will actually be impossible even in an eternity of time without guidance.

Finally let me stress that not even the guided evolution I believe in is perfect. I do not believe that the creators or instigators of this world are perfect either.

wirinet:

My brother, I respect your intellectual and spiritual depth, but I must it evolution is not one of your strong subjects. Me, I have been studying evolution since the age of 16, especially that of humans. That's close to 4 decades. I started studying evolution before the human genome was decoded. Even though I am not an authority on the subject, I fully understand the process.

So let me explain the evolution of sex and sexual reproduction as best as I can;

The Evolution of Sex

The process of evolution is gradual, not spontaneous or simultaneous. It occurs through minute, often imperceptible changes in genes ed down over many generations. While mutations—sometimes triggered by radiation or chemicals—can introduce rapid genetic changes, most such mutations are harmful. True evolutionary change, especially in complex systems like reproduction, takes time and builds slowly through natural selection and genetic variation.

1. The Origins: Asexual Reproduction

The earliest form of reproduction was asexual, beginning with simple cell division:
- Mitosis: A single cell grows and divides into two identical daughter cells. This method ensured efficient reproduction in unicellular organisms.
- Asexual reproduction still exists today and remains efficient for many simpler organisms, like bacteria and certain protists.

2. The Emergence of Sexual Reproduction

Over time, a more advanced method evolved—sexual reproduction, driven by the need for genetic diversity:
- Meiosis: A special type of cell division that reduces the chromosome number by half, producing specialized reproductive cells (gametes).
- Some bacteria and viruses engage in horizontal gene transfer, a primitive form of genetic exchange that increases variation—laying the foundation for sexual reproduction.

This exchange of genetic material greatly enhanced the adaptability and evolutionary potential of organisms.

3. Development of Sex Cells

As organisms evolved:
- Cells differentiated into specialized sex cells: sperm (male) and eggs (female).
- These gametes carried only half the genetic information, and required fusion (fertilization) to create a new, genetically unique organism.

4. Evolution of Reproductive Organs and Systems

To the new reproductive strategy:
- Organisms evolved reproductive organs to house and deliver gametes.
- Initially, many organisms were hermaphroditic, possessing both male and female reproductive organs. However, self-fertilization was often avoided to maintain genetic diversity.
- As complexity increased, many species evolved to have separate sexes, each specializing in one type of gamete. This was more efficient and avoided redundancy.

5. Fertilization Methods

- In simpler organisms(e.g., many fish and amphibians), fertilization is often external —females lay eggs and males release sperm over them.
- More complex organisms(e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles) developed internal fertilization, often accompanied by elaborate mating behaviors and specialized reproductive systems to increase the chances of successful reproduction.

6. Evolutionary Records and Continuity

One remarkable aspect of evolution is that it leaves behind traces of its history:
- From RNA to DNA, from simple proteins to cells, and from unicellular to multicellular life, these evolutionary stages are still observable today.
- Asexual and basic sexual reproduction coexist in modern organisms, offering a living window into our evolutionary past.

Many people who think they understand everything about evolution have the same unnecessary arrogance you have displayed here.

If you don't touch upon the point that all of the evolution of complimentary sexual organs must have happened in a single generation then not only do you not understand the issue, but you haven't even started to address it.

You mentioned that the evolution of sex is gradual. This could not be the case for one reason. Just tell me how there would have been successful reproduction during that gradual process with incomplete complementary reproduction systems?

That's all you need to address and not whether you started studying evolution when you were two years old.

This same arrogance of yours is what has caused many professors who have asked these questions to be fired by dogmatic academics in universities who cannot it that the ToE has problems.

And by the way, this issue of sexual reproduction is just one problem of the ToE. There are other problems.

I told you already I accept the ToE. But if you are one of those who think it has no unresolved issues, then you don't understand it as much as you think you do.

Ebubu:
Sitting Senators have immunity.
Waste of effort.

Parliamentary immunity only resides with respect to statements made during the sessions of parliament.

wirinet:

Complex organism were more vulnerable to environmental changes than simple or single cell organism, and thus a way to speed up evolution was required, this was where sexual reproduction came to the rescue.

.

You cant just state that "a way to speed up evolution was required" and as such boom! Sexual reproduction appears on the scene.
Sexual reproduction requires the simultaneous evolution in both male and female of complimentary sexual organs in a complete set, including mammary glands and all of this must happen in a single generation - which is impossible.

Lest I have to explain why it must happen in a single generation, it is because no offspring will survive or even come into being at all if the whole complimentary reproductive male and female set is not complete! Is this lost on you?

Can you now see the difficulty?

wirinet:

My brother male and female organs did not just evolve spontaneously. The organs evolved much later. It was the sex cells that first evolved and specialised in reproduction.

According to evolutionary theory, single cell organism lasted for a very long time before aggregating into multicellular. So asexual reproduction was the only means of reproduction. Also well into the early multicellular phase asexual reproduction ruled. It was when cells began to differentiate and organism increased in complexity that organs began to evolve. Complex organism were more vulnerable to environmental changes than simple or single cell organism, and thus a way to speed up evolution was required, this was where sexual reproduction came to the rescue.

It's a more complex process, and I read it quote a while ago, but I just presented you the summary.

It doesn't address the problems. I articulated them in 12 posers above.

@ Wirinet -

Here are the 12 posers I raised in that old thread.

--------

The reason I think it is a glaring sore thumb, and the genuine source of the controversies: is the fact that these phenomena are in reality completely outside the purview of the principles girding the Theory of Evolution! Natural selection and mutation of the sort advanced by the Theory of Evolution actually have no bearing whatsoever on these phenomena: and that is the real reason that evolutionists struggle in such wild confusion to force these phenomena under the trappings of evolutionary theory even when the principles of evolution have no bearing on them!

For your deep thinking please:

1. Why were the first unicellular organisms (which supposedly arose spontaenously from some pre biotic soup - [proposition not within ToE]) self replicating organisms at all?

2. If they were not self-replicating organisms, what factor led them to evolve the faculties of self replication at all.

3. If they were not self-replicating in nature, after first coming into existence, then they would have died, and the existence of any other such would depend on fresh flukes supposedly in some pre biotic soups.

4. Why is life self replicating at all? What s for this?

5. Further down the evolutionary path (and with great astonishing bounds and leaps of faith, I might add), why did se.xual organisms evolve?

6. In the case of se.xual organisms, which sex evolved first - male or female. Or did they evolve simultaenously, and how and why so? What evolutionary impetus drove this process, what caused this to happen at all. Or did females evolve from males only or males from females only or both from sexually neutral organisms?

7. Is it possible for a sexually neutral organism to evolve into two different and complimentary sexes?

8. Taken that separate sexes emerge, what evolutionary impetus drives and informs the aggregation of reproductive se.men in one sex while simultaneously driving the formation of a se.xual reproductive system complete with a womb in the other sex?

9. Further on, what evolutionary impetus would be responsible for the development of the pe.nis and testicles for the male, and simultaneously form the (ittedly eminently fit for purpose) va.gina and womb for the female?

10. What evolutionary process would cause the bodies to evolve such DNA transfer mechanisms as to be able to create the full copy of a complete creature through a se.xual process? What evolutionary impetus leads to this? What evolutionary explanation would there be for the coming to existence of umbilical cords?

11. What evolutionary pressure at the same time as all this also led to the formation of mammary glands (br.easts) for the female only, suitable for the nutrition of new born babies?

12. Where it is explained that men and women have all the foregoing se.xual differences on of differences in hormones, what evolutionary explanation is there for the difference in hormones in the first place? And with this last question bear in mind that if they were not male and female already, there would be no separate male and female needs to drive such evolution of separate and different hormonal systems ab initio!

A careful dwelling on each of these questions from the standpoint of the holistic supposed process of evolution - and in line with the principles of evolution as taught, is that which you guys need to do: and therewith see with immediate clarity that which I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.