Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

No it isn't. The OP combined the claim that evolution required a leap from self-replication to replication involving two sexes, which is not true, with the claim that sexual reproduction is inferior to asexual reproduction, which is also not true, and to which an answer beginning: "Once it was present, natural selection would favor sexual reproduction because..." would be an entirely reasonable one.The OP did not ask for the full story. No it isn't. In the light of your quote from Darwin, what he required is an absence of proof that there could be no such story.As Iano and I have pointed out, that is not a good way to test the theory, which is why I don't start threads entitled: "Evidence For Evolution: Creationists Can't Prove That Sex Didn't Evolve". That would be silly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is. Michael Behe has recently found this out. CTD, though, unlike you and Behe, doesn't even seem to understand what it means.

Didn't you find any papers relating to the "how" question amongst the 17,000 or so results in the google search I linked to? Your claim was that no one was making a serious attempt to tackle "it", and if "it" means how sexual reproduction came about, then you would have to be familiar with the literature in order to know that the question wasn't being tackled, wouldn't you?Not having conclusive results is not the same thing as not making a serious attempt to tackle something. Really? Imagined? Imagining evolutionary scenarios is actually quite easy, but finding out how something actually happened takes work.Darwin:

quote:

---

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

---

Unlike you, I don't listen to epileptic mystics, but if you mean that you agree with Darwin, good. So do I.So choose a complex organ, and demonstrate that it could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. It's not something most evolutionists would demand of you, but you seem to be almost volunteering, so go ahead.You could write to Michael Behe, and ask him to help you.

quote:

---

Really? Imagined? Imagining evolutionary scenarios is actually quite easy, but finding out how something actually happened takes work.

---

Did you really miss the word "plausible" in my post? It's still there, and it's if you need to double check.

quote:

---

So choose a complex organ, and demonstrate that it could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. It's not something most evolutionists would demand of you, but you seem to be almost volunteering, so go ahead.

---

Why repeat what's already been done? I couldn't take credit for it. Evolutionists deserve the credit in the case we're discussing. They have clearly shown that they can't account for the reproductive organs. The honest ones actually admit it.The rest change the subject, or talk about one small aspect and then pretend the whole thing's been explained. Explaining how to get from point Q to point R doesn't explain how to get from point A to point Z. And I personally consider these attempts at evasion to be confessions of failure.

Not at all, I wasn't quoting you directly. It's easy to imagine plausible evolutionary scenarios. Which of the existing hypotheses that you've found in the literature do you find implausible?But "plausible" hypotheses do not mean "what actually happened", which is much harder to find out.(Plausible is an interesting word coming from someone who believes in magic) You're having English comprehension problems with the Darwin quote.

quote:

---

You're having English comprehension problems with the Darwin quote.

---

Not really. I know he was only writing it as part of his snowjob formula: Acknowledge your idea's weak, then proceed to blah blah blah some excuses why the weakness should be overlooked. The whole book follows formats like that.If the practice goes back to that time, I expect he may well have had his fingers crossed when he wrote it. Or maybe he had some sort of "absolute proof" in mind when he penned the word "demonstrated". If so, he should have indicated it by writing "absolutely demonstrated". His bad.

quote:

---

But "plausible" hypotheses do not mean "what actually happened", which is much harder to find out.

---

If it's so easy, I think someone'd be doing it.Since when has "what actually happened" stopped an evolutionist? Or even slowed one down? These people are feather coating dinosaurs, and their story isn't even plausible yet on that one! BTW, shouldn't the 'ancestors' of mammals be portrayed with fur? (That's a freebie. Y'all're free to run with it if someone hasn't already got it going.)

Which, translated, means that the Darwin's ideas offend and contradict your superstitions and desires. Be honest with yourself. Ah, you agreed with him, and now, having understood the quote which you presented, you disagree with him. If your speed of comprehension is so slow in relation to everything you read about biology, you certainly shouldn't be criticising a major scientific theory. You've got through all the relevant literature already? At your speed of comprehension? Maybe miracles do happen.As I said, what actually happens isn't easy. I asked you to look at the literature because you made that statement about no-one making a serious attempt to tackle the question. That's a rash statement to make, because without being familiar with the research, you cannot know that. It was your claim, and in order to back it up, you've got a lot of reading to do.It's a bit more technical than the Bible, and you'll struggle, so you won't do it, and you'll probably go on criticising biology without knowing what you're talking about.That appears to be the prerogative of followers of the "true" religion of creationist Christianity. All the time. 150 years of research since Darwin, and there are still loads important gaps to be filled in, including the one we're discussing, so there are plenty of places for you to insert your God of the Gaps if you want to, as I pointed out to you way back in the thread.Do you expect piecing together over 3.5 billion years of the history of life to be easy? With creationism, all you have to do is read the Book of Genesis, then delude yourself. An easy half-hour's work. Examining reality doesn't work like that. I'm glad you agree that we descend from other animals.Which ancestors? The single-celled ones or the fish, perhaps?Silly question when you think about it, wasn't it?

This thread will not be permitted to devolve into charges of trickery and dishonesty. Please focus on the topic. If you'd like to discuss evolutionist dishonesty, please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi CTD,If you'd like to discuss the topic, fine.If you'd like to discuss Darwin's snowjob formula, please propose a new thread.If you'd like to discuss feathered dinosaurs, please propose a new thread.If you'd like to discuss the evolution of fur, please propose a new thread.If you'd like to ignore moderator requests, please don't even think about it. I'm trying to keep threads productive and on-topic.Please, no replies to this message, nor the previous.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Before getting to my main topic I'd like to express my hope that most participants will take the discussion seriously and not let those who are free and loose with inaccurate assertions and accusations set the tone.I'm not sure it's really possible to have a constructive discussion with CTD, so I'm just going to correct some of his recent misstatements and mischaracterizations. Many of these have already been addressed, but I thought it would be helpful to hit them all in just one place. CTD is correct that there is much we do not know about the evolution of sexual reproduction, particularly of the details of the evolution of almost any soft issue structure, which of course includes the sexual organs.But CTD is incorrect to imply there are no plausible scenarios, especially since he has included not just the origin of sexual reproduction but the entire evolution of reproductive systems. Sexual reproduction probably originated more than half a billion years ago and has been evolving ever since. Within that huge timespan there are some aspects of the evolution of sexual reproduction that have plausible scenarios and some that do not, but probably most haven't even been addressed yet. And most will probably never will be addressed, given that most of the details of evolutionary history are lost to us, especially of soft tissues.Like the child's game of asking why to every answer, in science it doesn't take very long to arrive at, "We don't know." Creationists like to point to things we don't know as evidence that what we do claim to know should be called into question. The rational response to such claims is, "Say what?" In other words, the proper rational reaction is complete puzzlement. It would be just as silly to claim, "We don't know if Jesus was right or left handed, therefore Christianity is a false religion."Creationists are well within their rights to claim foul when evolutionists claim knowledge we do not have, but that hasn't happened in this thread. And it can't happen in this thread until we reach some specifics, which probably won't happen until the creationist barrage of misstatements, mischaracterizations and false accusations diminishes a bit.If evolution is false then it will be shown false by accurate portrayals of what it actually says followed by the evidence showing how it is wrong. False portrayals and characterizations of trickery and dishonesty sow distrust and cause entrenchment - they do not yield progress. Entrenchment is actually in creationism's best interest because the evidence is not on their side. Open discussion in which actual accurate information is exchanged and understood works against them. Any evolutionists who allow themselves to be goaded into alienating responses are working against both themselves and the greater causes of education, understanding and enlightenment. There are many proposed ideas for the origin of sexual reproduction, and I'm in favor of discussion of these ideas in this thread. Not to belabor the point too much, but "We don't yet know with any confidence yet" is a valid answer. Evolutionists never claim that evolution can overcome any odds. What actually happens is that creationists usually say something like, "The odds of sexual reproduction originating naturally is 1 in 10¹⁰⁰," to which evolutionists would usually reply with something like, "That figure is made up. You can't calculate the probably of a largely unknown sequence of events, plus you're assumption that it happened in one giant leap is incorrect." That CTD can suggest that evolutionists should have no problem with sudden emergence of something as complex as sexual reproduction again gives the strong impression that he doesn't really understand evolution. Sudden emergence such as this would be the antithesis of evolution and couldn't really be incorporated into its framework. CTD is again drifting off-topic from the origin of sexual reproduction into the evolution of sexual organs, but no matter. CTD might just be using different words to again claim that there are many things we do not yet know, which I'm sure everyone agrees with, but any implication that evolutionary biologists believe they've shown that evolutionary theory cannot account for reproductive organs is clearly false. CTD here refuses to engage the discussion by supporting his assertion that there exists a complex organ which could not possibly "have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Since exploring the evolution of complexity is not this thread's topic, I'm just glad CTD didn't actually take Bluegenes up on his request, and so I'll comment on what CTD says about science. Here CTD counters with an unsupported accusation combined with a misunderstanding of the scientific process. Science advances in small increments, so when seeking the details from A to Z of some process, it is of course natural to proceed incrementally by filling in the details one letter at a time.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. The Bible DOES NOT say that the Earth is the center of the universe, and let's not forget that it was the scientist-type people of those days that thought that the Earth was the center, not the religious. This is what I meant by misinterpreting the Bible. Um, people who believe in Allah don't follow the Bible, but nice try though. Might want to brush up in your arguments.

Bluegenes only mentioned God and Bible in passing while lamenting that CTD was following a familiar creationist pattern of presenting an inaccurate characterization of evolution.This is your topic, and you said you wanted to discuss the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction.--Percy

Again with the long replies... Meh, it's much appreciated. I got through the first half of the post before I need to leave (for the rest of the weekend). As you mentioned, and a few of you kindly pointed out, I have limited knowledge of Evolution. All I know IS what I learned in my 9th grade Biology class. Not a very healthy argumentative factor in my opinion. And, as I said in my second post but probably got drowned out, I'm here to learn, not just argue with or convince anyone.I was just wondering if you, Rahvin, could post the current beliefs of Evolution. This way I won't have my (incorrect) limited knowledge. Thanks for taking the time to post. I'll try to finish when I get back.

Before I leave, let me try to clear up some things for you guys. What I initially meant by the two heads things was that the separation of genders doesn't seem helpful (or necessary) for survival. Having two heads would seem to be more helpful than having two genders, but when it happens, it just fades and doesn't incorporate into the population.Then you started talking about how God screwed up and made us imperfect. What I meant to say is that God made us perfect in his eyes. We are not physically or mentally perfect, but in His eyes we are. I know that won't make sense to a lot of you, but that's how it is. He made us masters over all animals, birds, and fish (Gen. 1:28). As a side post, can someone also explain to me what the evolutionist theory of why humans are the dominated species in the world (like why we are smart enough to think clearly, and why we are the only ones to get that far).You also said that I contradicted myself in saying we are perfect but not "perfect". Perfect in my eyes is different than perfect in God's eyes. It's why I'm not God. That also prolly won't clear anything up, but maybe someone will understand.

If you're using the word "belief" in the sense that someone might say, "I believe in God," then evolution has no beliefs.But if you're using belief in the sense of accepted views of evolutionary theory, then that's fine.Rather than burdening Rahvin with producing an exposition of evolutionary theory, just read Wikipedia on evolution. For a lengthy explanation of the advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, see Wikipedia on the evolution of sex.--Percy