PDA

View Full Version : Sexual Reproduction - Another Problem For Evolution.



bob b
March 8th, 2006, 08:47 PM
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction, because it seems to be at odds with the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that losing half the genes every generation would appear to be detrimental to perserving any "beneficial" mutations.

hatsoff
March 8th, 2006, 08:54 PM
That's true. We have a long way to go to map out evolution's mechanisms.

Quasar1011
March 8th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Wouldn't both male and female genders have to evolve at the same time? What are the chances of that?

hatsoff
March 8th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Wouldn't both male and female genders have to evolve at the same time?

No, although it is possible they did.

bob b
March 8th, 2006, 08:59 PM
That's true. We have a long way to go to map out evolution's mechanisms.

I am impressed by your candor.

bowhunter
March 8th, 2006, 09:04 PM
I am impressed by your candor.

Bob, I think he really believes it. Just shows that Hitler was right with his "big lie" scenario!

ItIsWritten
March 8th, 2006, 09:12 PM
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction, because it seems to be at odds with the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that losing half the genes every generation would appear to be detrimental to perserving any "beneficial" mutations.
Thank you, bob, :up:

So much of nature is "at odds with" the 'random+' senario that this is will eventually be labeled the theory that ate itself.

Quasar1011
March 8th, 2006, 09:37 PM
No, although it is possible they did.

Well what if they didn't? What if the male gender evolved first? With what would it reproduce?

hatsoff
March 8th, 2006, 09:39 PM
Well what if they didn't? What if the male gender evolved first? With what would it reproduce?

I do not know. I don't think scientists have enough information to make such a determination; if they do, I am not aware of it.

Quasar1011
March 8th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I propose that any species where the male evolved before a female mate evolved... would go extinct!

Apologist
March 8th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction, because it seems to be at odds with the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that losing half the genes every generation would appear to be detrimental to perserving any "beneficial" mutations.

You realize that sexual reproduction is in and of itself support for evolution, right? All you have to do is take a look at your crotch. Why do you think you have pubic hair? When a guy and a girl have sex, their crotches rub against each other. That creates friction. Friction hurts. Pubic hair is there to reduce that friction, and therefore that possible discomfort. So, now that we have pubic hair, sex no longer hurts, therefore people desire lots of it. :banana:

hatsoff
March 8th, 2006, 09:55 PM
I propose that any species where the male evolved before a female mate evolved... would go extinct!

Possibly. But such a mutation would require previous reproduction. It is possible, for example, that as sexes developed a species continued to reproduce asexually, until mutations had allowed for all the proper hardware.

But in the end it's all speculation. All we know for sure is that the sexes evolved. We have yet to determine just how that happened.

Quasar1011
March 8th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Possibly. But such a mutation would require previous reproduction. It is possible, for example, that as sexes developed a species continued to reproduce asexually, until mutations had allowed for all the proper hardware.

But in the end it's all speculation. All we know for sure is that the sexes evolved. We have yet to determine just how that happened.

Sex is a mutation? :help:

Apologist
March 8th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Sex is a mutation? :help:

Best mutation on the whole danged planet. Wheeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! My compliments to the chef!

:bannana:

`Love.
March 8th, 2006, 11:47 PM
I am impressed by your candor.

His candor makes me giggle inside. :crackup:

snowy
March 9th, 2006, 10:25 AM
As usual, bob b, is trying so hard to spread his confusion about science:
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction Yeah, we know that no scientific hypothesis supporting macroevolution can ever be deemed credible by you, bob b, we got that. :D

But let me ask this (again): can you stop bickering about what science doesn't know yet and get constructive: do you have a better explanation? More "credible"? Share it. Ah, perhaps the goddidit principle, I guess. The great creation plan that simply formed all these different species ex nihilo - the same marvelous design that brought us such delightful species like.. Bacillus anthrax and Entamoeba histolytica, right? ;)

Back to the topic: I didn't miss the deceiving tactics of your original post, the forced juxtaposition of your understandable anti-evolutionist incredulity, with Dawkins' honest admittance of our limited knowledge on the subject:

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that..

Nice move - rhetorically implying that "even" fierce evolutionists like Dawkins share your own confused incredulity when it comes to hypothesizing about how sexual reproduction may fit the evolutionary model.

Only that is simply not true: Dawkins may have stated what you wrote but otherwise he surely left plenty of room for scientific (and yes, credible) hypothesizing on the subject. Would you really like to discuss about it? (I suppose not, as you're surely not interested in "credible" explanations). If you at least read (and could follow) Dawkins' "Selfish gene" classic you may find even in there some reasonable hypotheses about how sexual differentiation may have come into play through the evolutionary progress (for example, have a read at chapter 9, "Battle of the sexes").

True, evolutionism cannot tell us for sure how that had happened. It's a complex, multi-stage process. We should probably start with assessing the evolutionary benefits of meiotic division, then move on to explore how that was even further beneficial by sexual differentiation, etc.

Since evolutionary explanation will never be credible for you, again, let's get back to your alternative explanation. I would love to discuss with you the details of how sexual reproduction came into the world according to your good book - I had some good fun reading those primitive misogynistic passages in Genesis 2-3, etc. and it was even funnier trying to extrapolate that "wisdom" to other life forms. For example, one would clearly read in your bible how that tribal patriarchal god came up with the sweet idea of creating the female counterpart mostly as a servant ("helper"?) for the male. Excellent plan. Though you may have some difficulty trying to apply the same paradigm to various animal species -- oops, look, that explanation is kind of messed up in the case of, say, the Praying Mantis bug (Mantis religiosa), where the big female sometimes decides to bite the male's head off as part of the mating ritual mechanics (?!). Not much of a "helper" for that male, is it? So please do something constructive for once and give us your biblical insights about how and why sexual reproduction appeared in say, the animal kingdom. Getting back to plants would probably be even harder, but give it a try if you feel like. And guess what: it's much easier to think of this in terms of evolutionary benefits -- for example, observing that sexuate reproduction highly encourages gene recombination and so on.

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 01:58 PM
As usual, bob b, is trying so hard to spread his confusion about science: Yeah, we know that no scientific hypothesis supporting macroevolution can ever be deemed credible by you, bob b, we got that. :D

I'm waiting, but not holding my breath.


But let me ask this (again): can you stop bickering about what science doesn't know yet and get constructive: do you have a better explanation? More "credible"?

I believe that everything that happened after creation has been according to the laws of the universe which work according to the design of God. I also believe that these laws could not have come into existence by themselves, nor could the material universe either.


Share it. Ah, perhaps the goddidit principle, I guess. The great creation plan that simply formed all these different species ex nihilo - the same marvelous design that brought us such delightful species like.. Bacillus anthrax and Entamoeba histolytica, right? ;)

"Species" is a human invented term which tries to categorize lifeforms. If you knew more about biology you would realize that most bacteria are not only harmless but actually many are required for the routine operation of other lifeforms. However, since the beginning a harmful process has been taking place, mutation, which sometimes transforms harmless or useful bacteria into harmful forms. This is called gradual deterioration of the creation and may be related to "The Fall".


Back to the topic: I didn't miss the deceiving tactics of your original post, the forced juxtaposition of your understandable anti-evolutionist incredulity, with Dawkins' honest admittance of our limited knowledge on the subject:

I am glad you enjoyed it. ;)


Nice move - rhetorically implying that "even" fierce evolutionists like Dawkins share your own confused incredulity when it comes to hypothesizing about how sexual reproduction may fit the evolutionary model.

He said it, I didn't.


Only that is simply not true: Dawkins may have stated what you wrote but otherwise he surely left plenty of room for scientific (and yes, credible) hypothesizing on the subject.

Yes, he is long on hypothesizing, but unfortunately short on science.


Would you really like to discuss about it? (I suppose not, as you're surely not interested in "credible" explanations). If you at least read (and could follow) Dawkins' "Selfish gene" classic you may find even in there some reasonable hypotheses about how sexual differentiation may have come into play through the evolutionary progress (for example, have a read at chapter 9, "Battle of the sexes").

I have books by Dawkins. Did you know that he "borrowed" the selfish gene idea from John Maynard Smith's book, "The Theory of Evolution"? Smith later admitted that his suggestion was sort of a joke, yet Dawkins never seemed to get the humor, to this day.


True, evolutionism cannot tell us for sure how that had happened. It's a complex, multi-stage process. We should probably start with assessing the evolutionary benefits of meiotic division, then move on to explore how that was even further beneficial by sexual differentiation, etc.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that lifeforms work because of the proteins they produce, and that there are vast chasms of useless proteins between the types produced by different lifeforms such as birds, mammals, reptiles, etc. Prior to this finding it had been assumed that there were no such chasms between the various "types".


Since evolutionary explanation will never be credible for you, again, let's get back to your alternative explanation. I would love to discuss with you the details of how sexual reproduction came into the world according to your good book - I had some good fun reading those primitive misogynistic passages in Genesis 2-3, etc. and it was even funnier trying to extrapolate that "wisdom" to other life forms. For example, one would clearly read in your bible how that tribal patriarchal god came up with the sweet idea of creating the female counterpart mostly as a servant ("helper"?) for the male. Excellent plan. Though you may have some difficulty trying to apply the same paradigm to various animal species -- oops, look, that explanation is kind of messed up in the case of, say, the Praying Mantis bug (Mantis religiosa), where the big female sometimes decides to bite the male's head off as part of the mating ritual mechanics (?!). Not much of a "helper" for that male, is it? So please do something constructive for once and give us your biblical insights about how and why sexual reproduction appeared in say, the animal kingdom. Getting back to plants would probably be even harder, but give it a try if you feel like. And guess what: it's much easier to think of this in terms of evolutionary benefits -- for example, observing that sexuate reproduction highly encourages gene recombination and so on.

As I have said many times, when the scientific arguments are going badly for them, the evolutionists typically try to switch the topic to the Bible. That is fine with me, but please use a different thread. This one is for science.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 02:55 PM
Yes, he is long on hypothesizing, but unfortunately short on science.

.

And YOU have a problem with that???

Johnny
March 9th, 2006, 04:00 PM
However, since the beginning a harmful process has been taking place, mutation, which sometimes transforms harmless or useful bacteria into harmful forms.That's funny bob. But before I show you just how "uphill" some bacteria would have had to gone to go from harmless to harmful, I'll let you decide whether or not you want to take it this route. It's easier to just say they were created that way.

hatsoff
March 9th, 2006, 05:51 PM
As I have said many times, when the scientific arguments are going badly for them, the evolutionists typically try to switch the topic to the Bible. That is fine with me, but please use a different thread. This one is for science.

There's nothing wrong with the science. The OP's implication--at least as I understand it--is that evolution never happened, and that sexual reproduction is just another example of an evolutionary impossibility. The problem with this implication is that the alternative explanation is the actual impossibility. Evolution is merely unexplained in its entirety. It is not, according to the best human understanding, impossible by any means. It is, in fact, the only logical theory thus far developed for how life has developed on earth. Discussing the Bible is very much on-topic in lieu of all that.

Apologist
March 9th, 2006, 05:51 PM
And everyone is ignoring the fact that i showed using the human body why human sexuality supports evolution. Ah well.

snowy
March 9th, 2006, 06:34 PM
Bob b, thanks for the reply -- but please don't try to fool us (or yourself too?) that this thread is for "science" even though it's posted in the "Religion" forum and there is an obvious "religious" motive behind it.. I thought this is a discussion, and both parts should advance their points and try to support/counter them. In your case, just bashing the obvious provisional status of biological sciences, without giving us anything better instead, is utterly futile. We've already admitted we do not know for sure how some complex processes (like sexual differentation) had happened billions of years ago, but we're trying to find out and we can still provide reasonable hypothesizing, making inferences from existing evidence/observations, etc.
I believe that everything that happened after creation has been according to the laws of the universe which work according to the design of God. I also believe that these laws could not have come into existence by themselves, nor could the material universe either.
I gather you're more of an YEC type and by dismissing macroevolution, you're essentially saying that all different species on Earth were created somewhat independently, right? And only made to look like they belong to a common phylogenetic tree - just to confuse the stupid evolutionists -- when in fact you known they are not, in fact, evolved from some common ancestor, correct? For that would contradict your bible.

If you knew more about biology you would realize that most bacteria are not only harmless but actually many are required for the routine operation of other lifeforms.
Sure. But you must be kidding trying to use this scientific observation as your excuse for the "creation" of species like Yersinia pestis or whatever caused the bubonic and black plagues of the Dark Ages -- are you saying that God did it for the preservation of the ecosystem!? This is your "Intelligent" Designer's excuse too, I presume -- the He just couldn't do it without wiping out millions of humans (the cream of his Creation, otherwise, right?) with various microbial plagues, just for the sake of some lower organism's physiological needs.. If your Creation Science is so well rooted in biology, do you happen to know for what "other lifeforms' routine operation" Yersinia pestis was so "needed"?

Moreover, according to your logic, doesn't it follow that the eradication of these plagues is then a very bad ecological movement from our part? For you know, we shouldn't interfere with the creation, and if he created those microbes for the purposes you suggested and we're killing them, you know.. we're screwing up His great but tight design, aren't we? :rolleyes:

However, since the beginning a harmful process has been taking place, mutation, which sometimes transforms harmless or useful bacteria into harmful forms. This is called gradual deterioration of the creation and may be related to "The Fall".
I see, so if the inherent logic of the Great Design doesn't fly you'll always have the "Fall" fallback story -- where things can get out of whack yet the Designer still keeps His hands clean. You'd think. So now killer microbes were especially "designed" to kill us through plagues as part of a Divine punishment&torture plan. (Don't tell me He didn't know they'll mutate in that direction). Physical death of old age wasn't enough, eh? Kind of spiteful , bellicose and even cruel designer/creator you have there -- considering that he also killed a lot of innocent children and animals in the process. (Did you also use to put a similar kind of destructive anger in your engineering work? With such a great role model, I wouldn't be surprised). However by eradicating those plagues we're still kinda' screwing up His [vengeful] design plans, I guess?

Yes, he is long on hypothesizing, but unfortunately short on science.
I don't see how you can mean this. You must know that that's exactly how science starts, by hypothesizing.

I have books by Dawkins. Did you know that he "borrowed" the selfish gene idea from John Maynard Smith's book, "The Theory of Evolution"? Smith later admitted that his suggestion was sort of a joke, yet Dawkins never seemed to get the humor, to this day.
Cute trivia - but no need to change the topic. I couldn't care less if Dawkins plagiarized someone else's work and made it popular. Science shouldn't be a search for personal glory anyway, it should only care about the theories and hope for the truth being unveiled in the process. And indeed, there is nothing new about the "selfish gene" idea. What he's presenting there is pretty much orthodox darwinism. So what did he steal, the "selfish" metaphor? That unfortunately brought him a lot of useless criticism from those who didn't understand it and took that attribute too literally, in a moral sense.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that lifeforms work because of the proteins they produce,
Actually, life form works because of specific patterns of interactions of those proteins, not only between themselves but also with all the other non-proteic components of an organism, including DNA (e.g. regulating transcription), etc.

..and that there are vast chasms of useless proteins between the types produced by different lifeforms such as birds, mammals, reptiles, etc.
Oh no, not Behe's "chasm" again. So what? What does this prove? That the biblical god created them like that? Or perhaps that we just don't understand yet all the intermediary steps that were taken during the long evolutionary history to arrive at this state of facts? There are still plenty of common or similar things between all those animal kinds -- including a large part of their DNA, many well conserverd proteins, etc.

Prior to this finding it had been assumed that there were no such chasms between the various "types".
So what - that's how science progresses. New findings all the time. Shifting paradigms if needed - it's OK, it's a learning process, it's still a progress. What do you have really supporting the biblical account of creation and how much sense does that make?

As I have said many times, when the scientific arguments are going badly for them, the evolutionists typically try to switch the topic to the Bible.
But isn't this precisely what you're trying to do too, ultimately? If evolution is wrong, the bible must be true -- that's how your itchy non sequitur goes, I suppose. So let's bash [macro]evolutionism, and your "truth" will prevail, right?

Besides, my question to you was pretty much on the topic of sexual differentiation. Again, I was hoping for an exchange of ideas here, not just to join the chorus of your anti-evolutionist bickering. We already admitted we don't know much but we can still hypothesize rationally on the subject. Now it's your turn, give us something already. Preferrably from your textbook (the Bible).

So, here we go again -- do you have an alternative explanation for the need of sexual reproduction - according to the Grand Theory of Creation and Intelligent Design? What source of evidence do you have for that? I just assumed you're going to use your Bible for supporting your "correct" views, fashionably squeeze and twist some verses to make them sound like "science", or scientifically relevant - it's a very popular trend these days. (See Bob Enyart and the Orion-belt gaffe). Or perhaps you want to use some additional materials? (Shouldn't you guys start to canonize Behe's rants against evolution, you know, just to get more up-to-date materials? :))

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Well I was going to reply until I realized that you won't talk about science and only want to use this thread to bash God.

I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.

sgttomas
March 9th, 2006, 08:50 PM
Did you know that evolutionists have no credible explanation for sexual reproduction, because it seems to be at odds with the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

But don't take my word for it. Even the arch evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that losing half the genes every generation would appear to be detrimental to perserving any "beneficial" mutations.

Whatever, Bill O'reiley...o'really?

dubiously,

-sgt.

hatsoff
March 9th, 2006, 09:01 PM
Well I was going to reply until I realized that you won't talk about science and only want to use this thread to bash God.

I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.

He's not bashing God, he's bashing your ridiculous belief that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. And if perhaps he could be a bit less aggressive in his posts, you could be a bit less stubborn in your archaic beliefs.

snowy
March 9th, 2006, 09:15 PM
You've got to be kidding me.
That's the only argument you're left with? Appeal to force? "Remove the heretic, shut him out"? :D Pathetic, really.

The OP had an obvious religious agenda. I made you face it and tried to get you to defend whatever theory of Creation/Intelligent Design of species and sexes you can propose instead of the "flawed" theory of evolution -- and now, instead of defending your theory you just go find refuge behind some "fellow" admin that can feel your.. what, frustration?

Frankly, I wouldn't have expected you to admit defeat so soon, and not in such a childish manner. And by banning me just for this critique of your "theory", TOL admins would essentially acknowledge the very same defeat and the demise of such "theory", and that it does not stand up to scrutiny. Which is OK with me :).

Besides, your motive for banning me is so poorly constructed -- this thread is in fact in the "Religion" forum -- not in a Science forum. What, questioning the alleged "design", the presupposed motives of your god and the whole creationist "theory" of species/sexes -- is not allowed? Only mocking and dismissing evolutionism is permitted, with nothing for you to have to support/defend here ? You must be kidding.

Well, if this is the "best" TOL can get, so be it.

Johnny
March 9th, 2006, 10:01 PM
I am asking that the administrator consider banning you from this forum.What a trip.

Apologist
March 9th, 2006, 10:24 PM
Yah, that's totally lame.