Of course - single cell organisms don't have a womb which is absolutely necessary for a mammal to reach gestation maturity.
This is a strange response in this context.
I am merely pointing out that a heck of a lot of information needs to be present in order for a totipotent stem to do its work. There is no logic in comparing this scenario to a single celled organism evolving into a human over eons (as you did previously). Your statement is nonsensical.
The only difference inside the cell is in the DNA, and there are clearly many existing organisms alive on earth today that are intermediate in reproduction methodology from asexual single cell division to single cell sexual life forms and on up to human.
It looks this way to your eye; It sure feels this way in your heart, but it's a lot more complex than that friend.
It's like saying a house is an intermediate between a washing machine and a 747 because they both have doors.
There's a lot more going on than meets the eye or the heart. You're making a gross oversimplification. Again, this is often done to confuse people into believe evolution is possible.
We're talking about arranging information here (in this context). You're dealing with astronomical odds. You're playing on a roulette wheel the size of Jupiter and hoping for 10 million hits in a row. This is simply a mathematical impossibility without external intelligence.
The process of reproduction can easily evolve as the organism that are reproducing change from generation to generation -- after all that is what evolution is.
No, it can't.
And this is one of the most consistently outrageously ridiculous things that evolutionists keep having this unspeakable faith in.
You're looking a television set and saying,
"Hey, it has:
(1) A knob, and
(2) A picture tube, and
(3) A Plug.
Turn it on it's side and it'll be a chair!"
You're conveniently forgetting about the other 10,000 parts that need to be perfectly arranged, except that were talking about something here with much, much more information to deal with.
You are omitting massive amounts of information that would need to be changed in such an exacting and coordinated way that it simply becomes a mathematical impossibility, so much so that this type of speculation (blind faith) is not in the realm of science. It's much more akin to a man-made religion.
Honestly, either you're believing in a gross simplification because you don't realize the difficulties here or you know about the difficulties and are trying to proselytize.
But there is no element in a human cell that is not in a single cell eukaryote organism. DNA has four (4) bases and twenty (20) amino acids and there are no special parts in human DNA that are not in the DNA of a prokaryote bacteria.
Just more of the same garbage buddy.
Yes, the world contains all the elements necessary to build something complex. Now what?
We're talking about processes here, not state.
Clearly 70% of the zygotes did not have the necessary equipment in their cells. That's a 2 to 1 failure rate that kind of blows your argument out of the water, eh Russ? Especially those that divided and formed sacs but no embryo.
What on earth does this have to do with my argument?
Were you in a hurry?
---
[color:"brown"]"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."[/color]
—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
