Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

That is not what evolution tells us.It was much more gradual than that.Take a look at the wiki page on the evolution of sex and come back with any questions.You find this at the bottom:

quote:

---

Origin of sexual reproduction

​

The most primitive organisms known to undergo meiosis and to reproduce sexually are protists (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria.

​

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]

​

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[23]

​

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[23]

​

A theory states that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids. [25]

​

A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26]

---

Yes, Evolution works. So when everything except for the Bible is saying that Evolution works, how do you know that you are not misinterpreting the Bible?I mean, you said it yourself: Have you considered that Evolution works and you are misinterpreting the Bible?

Don't you see? (reread the thread)...If sexual evolution is a screwup for evolution, as you said: you also said it was "some statistical absurd chance". After that you say that actually god is responsible for it, so therefore god has "screwed up" by creating things the other way.This lack of those superior things is the same kind of screwup for god as it is for evolution.But, as someone trying to help, let me inform you that you have gravely misunderstood what the Theory of Evolution postulates.Lamarckian evolution is long gone as it is an impossibility.What the current, actual Theory of Evultion does postulate works fine and doesn't even contradict the Bible.You can check it off along with natural selection, mutation and adaptation.Then we can discuss where you've misinterpreted the Bible