Another evolutionary dilemma: sexual reproduction.

noguru

Well-known member
When looking at this issue in the OP we must make a distinction between sexual reproduction and sexual dimorphism. There are extant organisms that exhibit no amount of sexual dimorphism but do practice sexual reproduction. The evidence suggests that sexual reproduction appears first in the fossil record. Sexual dimorphism appears much later. This scenario alleviates most if not all of the problems that Walt Brown has brought to our attention.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone knew if a new scientific theory had been proposed to explain the rise of sexual reproduction.

Incidentally I do not see the posts of noguru anymore because I felt I had to place him on my ignore list because of his recent rapidfire posting of nonsense posts.
 

noguru

Well-known member
The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone knew if a new scientific theory had been proposed to explain the rise of sexual reproduction.

Incidentally I do not see the posts of noguru anymore because I felt I had to place him on my ignore list because of his recent rapidfire posting of nonsense posts.

Your reaction definitely fits your mo. Of course explaining how my recent post are nonsensical is not within your repetoire. You do have a track record for making claims that you fail to support with evidence. If it is so obvious that my posts are nonsensical, at least have the courtesy of showing how just one of them is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:

macguy

New member
Doomed if I don't abandon reason and replace it with faith in fairy tales and superstitions?

:crackup: Scripture is not a superstition but is quite an impossible faith. This comment really pushes the thought that we are commanded to not question anything based on reason. Faith, if anything is based on reason. You, on the other hand, have no basis for the usage of reason let alone whether it is even reliable. Why not be skeptical about reason itself?

I would rather say that the process was a non-random naturalistic creation.
 

Johnny

New member
macguy said:
This comment really pushes the thought that we are commanded to not question anything based on reason. Faith, if anything is based on reason.
A bit off-topic but wasn't Thomas told that those who believe without seeing are blessed? Also, you claim that faith is based on reason, but I think were we to explore this avenue eventually you would find an unfounded belief on which your whole worldview rests. That's the way it is for myself and every other believer who practices some sort of faith.
 

macguy

New member
Also, you claim that faith is based on reason, but I think were we to explore this avenue eventually you would find an unfounded belief on which your whole worldview rests. That's the way it is for myself and every other believer who practices some sort of faith.

Not really as my link very well demonstrates that reason can and is a basis for faith. Of course you'll have faith, but this degree will be trust instead of being "blind". Thomas saw many miracles already preformed by Jesus yet still refused to believe that it was true. Jesus spoke of his resurrection many times and it would also seem that they were a bit depressed that their Messiah died... They would have been blessed though, to trust in Jesus's words without seeing because of his past works. I am sure there are those who have blind faith, but under biblical terms Skeptic's definition is hardly an accurate depiction.

Some are brought up into Christianity and don't consider the evidence until later. Many Scripture verses actually encourage us to use reason nevertheless. I am just weary of the repeated claim that we have blind faith which skeptic seems so fond of.
 

macguy

New member
:rotfl:
Doomed if I don't abandon reason and replace it with faith in fairy tales and superstitions?

I'd like to further address this over-stated argument. I already explained that faith isn't blind which then makes you're fairy tales and superstition a rather categorical mistake. Furthermore, merely because you claim it's a fairy tale doesn't make it so. One may argue in the future after some destruction that George Bush was a fairy tale because the only articles that support his existence were told in stories. It's also true that simply because one accepts Christianity as true doesn't make it so either. If you accept the latter, but not the former then essentially you're committing a double standard.


By the way, what gives you any right to call Christianity a fairy tale when atheism can state that some came from nothing? They also make more outlandish claims:

Life came from non-life.
Intelligence arose from non-intelligence.
Order comes out of chaos.
Irrationality brings reason.


All in all, they use their own imaginations for story-telling. In fact, I was surprised to enter an honest museum which openly stated that scientists often tell stories and still do today. For the atheist, why would there be a problem with miracles? Another categorical mistake which you make is to label God like Santa Claus. These tales have absolutely no application to metaphysical questions and certainly don't explain our meaning and existence. Rather we should focus on what evidence that these ideas have in support of it. Miracles aren't unreasonable in any way if a God exists. Design is set out to demonstrate just that. We therefore can make the inference on that scientific data, as atheists do in order to justify the conclusion that God exists. Absolute proof can never be acquired so at best we should speak in probabilities. For the most part, it mostly has to do with one's world-view. My comments on a debate also deal with this claim

macguy said:
I know that a all-too-common objection that will surely be raised is the God of the gaps fallacy (aka argument from ignorance). In some cases, I would agree with the skeptic but at most we never even use the argument from ignorance which atheists just seem to come up with out of nowhere. To me it is quite hypocritical for atheists to give us the burden of proof and then suddenly say that God is not a appropriate explanation for a phenomenon. Whether it be heads or tails, it is a win-win situation for them which is hardly fair and quite illogical. I see the God-of-the-gaps argument as an easy way to escape a problem. Any argument that we bring up can easily be done away by claiming that science will one day solve the problem. Heck, I might as well argue that Jesus will come to solve the problem soon and His existence will be proven (someone better run for it). Atheists would have a problem with that and claim it’s illogical to hold on a belief that doesn’t even have proof at a given moment. Now, I would agree if the theist claimed that a extra-celestial planet had some rather odd characteristics and orbiting patterns can only be created by God. Would this not be premature? Indeed so but in other issues such as the origin of the universe, us theists has reason to believe that God is the best explanation for the universe coming into existence because the answer would require a being which posses the characteristics of God. What if God did create the universe and life itself? Humans by definition are finite beings and have a limited number of observations but would be the problem with saying that God is the best explanation for a given phenomena? In my opinion, the atheist would do better to provide evidence that it is likely that a naturalistic solution is forthcoming. However, in most cases, the charge is rarely backed up by data and is hard to take seriously.

Christianity is a world-view that makes sense of the world through a logical manner and it was through Christians, that helped science prosper against superstitious ideas because they thought God's creation can be tested. After all, it was the glory of a king to search out a matter, but the glory of God to conceal a matter. Miracles don't make sense in all views such as atheism or marxism. When Jesus rose again the disciples reacted by responding, "Whoa! This is all making sense now!". Marxists on the other hand, would react to Marx's resurrection by saying, "Uh? This doesn't make sense...". That's because Jesus rising again explained things such as the prophecies, Jesus's claims of resurrection, death as a payment for sins etc... Marx rising again would bear no meaning.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
From the content of the posts on this thread I can only conclude that sexual reproduction must still be an evolutionary dilemma.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Aw, come on Bob. Give them a chance. They don't even have a clue how knee joints evolved...
 

SUTG

New member
:crackup: Scripture is not a superstition but is quite an impossible faith. This comment really pushes the thought that we are commanded to not question anything based on reason. Faith, if anything is based on reason. You, on the other hand, have no basis for the usage of reason let alone whether it is even reliable.

Faith is a tricky word, since it is often used in two different senses. There is faith based upon evidence, and there is religious faith.

Using the first sense of the word, one might say "I have faith that the seatbelt will protect me in my car". Another way to say this is to say that the driver trusts in the reliability of his seatbelt.

The other sense of the word is what Richard Dawkins calls "religious faith". This is belief without evidence, and I think what Skeptic was referring to. Among many people, this type of faith is seen as superior to the first, and a virtue of a true believer.

I don't mean to suggest that all religious belivers base their belief on the second type of faith. They may claim to have evidence to support their belief, but i may disagree with them on whether the evidence really supports their belief.

I think the second type of faith is epistemologcially dangerous, and alot of religious believers would agree with me. In these cases, our disagreement is usually in regards to the evidence.

In the Evolution/YEC debate, if you can call it a debate, the YEC seems to prefer the second kind of faith, albeit thinly disguised as the first.
 

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
From the content of the posts on this thread I can only conclude that sexual reproduction must still be an evolutionary dilemma.
Why in the world would you ask TOL if you really wanted to know what was going on in the field?

Be honest, you didn't really care. I know the Bob B formula well enough already to predict what would have happened had someone answered:

"You evolutionists are good at just-so stories".

(I'm making a Bob B flowchart)
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why in the world would you ask TOL if you really wanted to know what was going on in the field?

I already know what is going on in the field. I wanted to see if anyone else knew.
Aparently not.

Be honest, you didn't really care. I know the Bob B formula well enough already to predict what would have happened had someone answered:
"You evolutionists are good at just-so stories".

Good conclusion, especially in the field of sexual reproduction.

(I'm making a Bob B flowchart)

I already have one for evolutionists.

When faced with a dilemma like sexual reproduction, "bob and weave".

So you know a lot about evolution Johnny. Why your silence about sexual reproduction?
 

rexlunae

New member
From the content of the posts on this thread I can only conclude that sexual reproduction must still be an evolutionary dilemma.

This makes me wonder how many people you're ignoring. You haven't even responded to PlastikBuddha's post, you just naysaid Skeptic, and you've admitted to ignoring Noguru over what seem to be his genuine attempts to understand your position.

I wonder if you realize how bad it looks when someone posts a solid criticism in response to one of your posts and you just ignore it.

If evolutionary theories were not causing people to lose their faith in Jesus Christ, and the only place we hear of Him, the Bible, then I would have no need to strive against these theories.

Aha. Here's the reason you ignore anything to which you can't respond. You don't actually care if evolution is right or wrong; It's leading people away from Jesus so you'll do anything to undermine it. So much for honesty, and so much for your DNA/RNA/protein system rationalization.

But it is fairly obvious that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ then one must have an alternative creation story.

That's the worst false dilemma I've ever heard. I doubt if the Muslims look at it that way, or the Buddhists, or really any other religious group. Jesus Christ isn't even a creation story!

There are lots of people who will wait for a good explanation rather than accepting a bad one, especially when there are so many bad ones to choose from.

Evolution, as inadequate as it is, is that alternative creation story that gives comfort to the atheist that he has nothing to worry about: i.e. there is no afterlife.

No, it really isn't. It's a component of the naturalistic explanation being developed by scientists, by rational, objective, non-dogmatic means, for the existence of the universe, but it doesn't "give comfort". On the contrary, natural selection is a brutal, distasteful process that leads to suffering and death for many, which I can't see anyone taking as comforting. However, it happens, whether we like it or not, and we need to deal with it on those term.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

The Evolution of Sex
The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Several explanations have been suggested by biologists including W. D. Hamilton, Alexey Kondrashov, and George C. Williams to explain how sexual reproduction is maintained in a vast array of different living organisms.

The two-fold cost of sex
This diagram illustrates the two-fold cost of sex. If each individual were to contribute to the same number of offspring (two), (a) the sexual population remains the same size each generation, where the (b) asexual population doubles in size each generation. In all sexual species, the population consists of two sexes, only one of which is capable of bearing young (with the exception of simultaneous hermaphrodites). In an asexual species, each member of the population is capable of bearing young. This implies that an asexual population has an intrinsic capacity to grow more rapidly each generation. The cost was first described in mathematical terms by John Maynard Smith [1]. He imagined an asexual mutant arising in a sexual population, half of which comprises males that cannot themselves produce offspring. With female-only offspring, the asexual lineage doubles its representation in the population each generation, all else being equal. Often all else is not equal, however, in which case the realized fitness cost to sex may be much less than this intrinsic two-fold cost of producing males. For example, an asexual mutant arising in a sexual population occupies a niche frozen to that of its parental genotype because the asexual descendants are genetically self-identical. Analysis of competitive Lotka-Volterra equations suggests that the asexual lineage may never realize its full two-fold advantage in population growth capacity, if the broader niche of the sexual population confers even a small competitive edge [2].

An additional cost is that males and females must search for each other in order to mate, and sexual selection often favours traits that reduce the survival of individuals [1].

Evidence that the cost is not insurmountable comes from George C. Williams, who noted the existence of species which are capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction. These species time their sexual reproduction with periods of environmental uncertainty, and reproduce asexually when conditions are more favourable. The important point is that these species are observed to reproduce sexually when they could choose not to, implying that there is a selective advantage to sexual reproduction [3].

---------

Note: sexual reproduction has advantages once it has been established. The dilemma is how it could ever have evolved in the first place.

The assumption of multiple advanced types at the beginning of course solves this dilemma.

It is interesting to note that the Wikipedia article labeled The Evolution of Sex doesn't discuss the evolution of sex.
 

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
I already have one for evolutionists.

When faced with a dilemma like sexual reproduction, "bob and weave".
What planet are you on? Real Sorceror basically said he didn't know. PlastikBuddha actually responded to you and you ignored him completely, Skeptic told you why "I don't know" is preferable to "God did it" (to which you responded that he needs to get saved or he is going to hell) noguru brought up a good point about sexual dimorphism vs. sexual reproduction (which you ignored). After failling to respond to PlastikBuddha, failing to respond to Skeptic, after failing to respond to noguru, you then claim evolutionists are the one's doing the bobbing and weaving? Unbelievable, Bob. Absolutely unbelievable.

Now, take a look at this series of exchanges:
bob b said:
I was wondering if any progress had been made in the past few years to solve this dilemma?
bob b said:
From the content of the posts on this thread I can only conclude that sexual reproduction must still be an evolutionary dilemma.
Johnny said:
Why in the world would you ask TOL if you really wanted to know what was going on in the field?
bob b said:
I already know what is going on in the field. I wanted to see if anyone else knew. Aparently not.
You are such a farce. First you claim to want to know what's going on and if any progress has been made in the past few years. Then in your own words, "from the content of the posts on this thread", you conclude that no progress has been made in the field. Then when I question you, you admit that you really already know, you just wanted to see if anyone else knew.

If you already knew then why did you make the statement, "From the content of the posts on this thread I can only conclude that sexual reproduction must still be an evolutionary dilemma"? That statement says that you based your conclusion on what was posted in this thread. If your conclusion was based on anything else, which you now claim it was as you said you "already knew", then why did you make that statement?

bob b said:
So you know a lot about evolution Johnny. Why your silence about sexual reproduction?
Because I only have so much time. I'm already engaged in another thread where you're demanding source quotes from journals of me (before you'll answer my questions). And since I actually comply with requests for sources and actually make an attempt to back myself up, such requests are time consuming and often by the time I'm done responding to one post I'm not too interested.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Johnny,

Take a deep breath.

I know that you probably have less trouble on other forums with overwhelming the dreaded "creationists".

Sorry to have to cause you inner turmoil by asking you whether sexual reproduction is another evolutionary dilemma.

You still haven't answered.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Johnny,

Take a deep breath.

I know that you probably have less trouble on other forums with overwhelming the dreaded "creationists".

Sorry to have to cause you inner turmoil by asking you whether sexual reproduction is another evolutionary dilemma.

You still haven't answered.

Bob you are an idiot. :kookoo: I am assuming Bob still has me on his ignore list, otherwise I would never have posted that. :rotfl:
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Bob you are an idiot.

Whoa! :noway:

The insight of this most profound statement is just so unbelievably outstanding.

You must have studied and researched all day to submit such an enlightening post as this.
 
Top