Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

There's nothing statistically unlikely about any aspect of evolution in a universe of this size and nature, and it could well be happening on many other planets. As for absurd, evolutionary biology doesn't suggest things like people suddenly becoming pillars of salt, walking on water, or having conversations with snakes.Neither does it ask us to believe in direct contradictions, like an "omniscient" being who expresses surprise in events that take place in his own creation.I'd avoid the word "absurd" if I were you, because you risk having your superstitions ridiculed around here if you use words like that.Here's an easy to read article which gives you an idea of two popular hypotheses that explain some of the advantages of sexual reproduction, and should answer your question about natural selection "crushing it".Evolution: Sex: The Advantage of SexWelcome to EvC.{ABE} You ask us to say which side of the debate we're on. I'm on the side with all the evidence.Edited by bluegenes, : answer to o.p. request

Your teacher was an eighteenth century evolutionist? How old are you?

I said that because what you were describing is like the 18th century view of French evolutionist Lamarck.

Why do creationists need to lie and do they do it deliberately, in desperate defense of their myths, or is it self-deception?CTD, if you want to hold forth on a complex subject like reproductive evolution, you'd be better off spending less time wanking over ancient scriptures, written by people who thought the sun went round the earth and who had no idea the continent you live on existed, and more time actually finding out about the subject.Much wordier, indeed. Millions of words have been written about the benefits and costs of sexual reproduction. But in the mind of a superstitious fool, this becomes "no serious attempt to tackle it".Stop lying to yourself, and start educating yourself: HEREAnd remember, when scientists don't know exactly how something happened, at any point in time, that does not mean "Allah did it". SILLY SUPERSTITIOUS ARGUMENTS

There's both a how question and a why one in the O.P.The "why" one is "why doesn't natural selection crush it", "it" meaning sexual reproduction. Because more is known about that than the "how" one (how did sexual reproduction come about in the first place) is probably why the answers in this thread deal more with it. There's no question of motive related to either question, as you should know.There are various feasible hypotheses on the "how" question, but no strong theory, so, like abiogenesis, it's still a good area to stick your God of the Gaps in.Because evolution is something that is known to happen. Something for which there is evidence.Creation mythologies are something humans are known to invent, as evidenced by the enormous number of mutually exclusive ones from many different cultures.Here's a site you'll enjoy as you like magic. Creation Myths including the Jewish one

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.

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.

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?

All you need to do, if you disagree with anything in Message 52 is quote the relevant bits, and explain why. I'll be happy to explain and defend any of my comments in that message.As for unwelcome truths, do repeat and expand on any "truths" you feel you've come up with. If you mean the kind of thing that I originally took you up on, which was this: I'm happy to discuss whether any serious attempts to tackle the origins and evolution of sexual reproduction are being made in relation to any research either of us can find. You haven't actually backed your assertion at all, and I'm sure that I won't be the only person reading the thread who suspects that your decision not to continue on this vein is actually nothing to do with your views being misrepresented, but rather, the opposite.