Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 106 of 180 (459102)
03-03-2008 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by fallacycop
03-03-2008 8:32 PM


Dare I say you're splitting hairs?
Absolutely not.
As I mentioned earlier, if you are going to discuss scientific ideas with scientists, you have to speak their language.
Gender roles vary between cultures. Naughty bits don't.
What an American considers "masculine", a Tchambuli in Africa considers "feminine".
Specifically, hunting is a "masculine" activity to an American, a "feminine" one to the Tchambuli.
Getting all gussied up with makeup and such is a "feminine" trait to an American, a "masculine" trait to the Tchambuli.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by fallacycop, posted 03-03-2008 8:32 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by fallacycop, posted 03-04-2008 3:17 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 107 of 180 (459107)
03-03-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Lyston
03-03-2008 8:09 PM


Yes, the sexes, not sexual reproduction nor asexual reproduction.
The origin of the sexes is the origin of of sexual reproduction.
The ONLY reason the 2 sexes exist is so that sexual reproduction can occur.
To me, your definition sounds more like "gender stereotyping" (roughly the same as Gender Roles), something that we discussed in my psychology class.
Oh for the love of pete.
Your own psych textbook gives you the answer I provided:
They define it as the "cultural or behavioral traits a society associates with ones gender"
CULTURAL. Gender varies with culture.
From dictionary.com.
sex: the feminine gender.
Feminine. Not FEMALE.
From Merriam Webster:
2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
FEMININE. CULTURAL.
To repeat:
Masculine = gender.
Male = sex.
Feminine = gender.
Female = sex.
From wiki:
Gender, in common usage, refers to the differences between men and women.
In COMMON usage. This is the same problem you are having with the word theory. Common usage v. scientific usage.
From wiki:
Sex refers to the male and female duality of biology and reproduction.
Scientists use precise definitions.
Nowhere in the scientific literature will you find a biologist referring to "the feminine gender". A biologist only refers to "the female sex".
Anyway, by definition not found by you, this thread is supposed to be about genders.
No it isn't. Evolution did not "create" gender. People did.
Had evolution "created" gender, it wouldn't vary between cultures.
By definition, it also is about the sexes.
No. It is only about the sexes.
The sexes evolved. Gender did not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 8:09 PM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 1:05 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 108 of 180 (459115)
03-04-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by molbiogirl
03-03-2008 10:28 PM


CULTURAL. Gender varies with culture.
Specifically, the definition I gave was of Gender Roles, not genders, but thanks for acknowledging how similar your definition is to Gender Roles, not genders themselves.
From dictionary.com.
sex: the feminine gender.
Feminine. Not FEMALE.
You forgot the italics. The "the feminine gender" is context of it, with sex being the definition. For your Merriam Webster thing, it's the same. You say it means (a) sex, but can also be (b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.
You know, there a big secret that I'm sure the writers of dictionaries don't want you to know. It is... words can have MULTIPLE definitions! Who woulda thunk it?
But I'm over this argument on whether gender is correct or sex is. Maybe I should have answered the forms I fill out as "gender: masculine" instead of "gender: male", but I'm not in a caring mood.
Let's just agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 10:28 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2008 2:09 AM Lyston has not replied
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 03-04-2008 2:18 AM Lyston has replied
 Message 114 by Jaderis, posted 03-04-2008 4:35 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 180 (459117)
03-04-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lyston
02-28-2008 12:21 AM


A Simple Hypothesis
I'd like to see if I can help a bit here by giving a very basic, non-mechanistic hypothesis for the development of sexual reproduction into the two-sexes thing we know today.
Let's start with one thing here, though:
Lyston writes:
And, how are you sure that things didn't start out with sexual reproduction and asexual was a mutation?
You've used the word "mutation" like this several times, and it's not entirely accurate. The word "mutation" refers only to a change in a gene, not to something that's different. It's likely that several mutations contribute to the transition between asexual and sexual reproduction.
Now, on to the hypothetical scenario:
Some organisms are isogamous (meaning that both types of gametes are identical--this is generally considered more "primitive"). Then, there are some that are anisogamous (meaning one gamete type is bigger than the other). Then, there are oogamous (oh-AH-guh-muss) types (egg and sperm--this is generally considered more "derived").
In some simple, single-celled organisms (such as algae), two cells (constituting two organisms) could feasibly combine into one with twice the genetic material of the former two, giving it added flexibility in the face of a pathogen (i.e. if one of the two genomes had a defective gene, the other genome's copy of that gene could cover for it). You can see how this would be beneficial? Perhaps this wouldn't include two cells completely fusing, but one cell transferring a copy of genome into the other.
Later, multicellularity could come around, and certain cells (with only one genome, instead of two--this is called "haploid") specialize in breaking away from the organism and fusing with other gamete cells to produce variation. This is what would be considered "isogamous." Eventually, the multicellular organism could produce tissues, which could produce organs, which could specialize in producing haploid gametes.
Providing care for one's offspring is also beneficial, wouldn't you agree? So, if an organism in a gene pool develops a pouch in which it's gametes could be kept, and gametes from other individuals could enter and fuse there, this would also increase the offspring's chance of survival, right? So, retaining gametes would be favorable to letting them loose in the cruel world.
However, if everybody retains their gametes inside themselves, how would the gametes find each other? Under these conditions, someone whose gametes can go out and find gametes that are retained would have an advantage. Thus, swimming gametes (sperm) are formed, going after the retained gametes (eggs), and we now have the two sexes that we are currently familiar with.
This may or may not be the way it actually happened, but it's reasonably close, at any rate, and it provides a simple background for the general process. This pattern of isogamy--anisogamy--oogamy can actually be seen as you follow certain branches of the evolutionary tree of the algae. I didn't propose any mechanisms, but the mechanisms are generally mutation and natural selection.
Feel free, other evolutionists, to add to, alter or clarify anything in this little scenario. Likely, there are other, sub-cellular factors to consider before the "two cells fusing" phase I listed first (such as lateral gene transfer, as mentioned a few times in this thread), but this is generally where our current knowledge is still in its infant stages.
Edited by Bluejay, : I wrote "genders" where I should have written "sexes": I did this for the sake of molbiogirl's sanity.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 12:21 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 110 of 180 (459120)
03-04-2008 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by molbiogirl
03-03-2008 10:09 PM


That's sexual reproduction.
Not asexual.
Never said it was asexual. I was just offering a random hypothesis that maybe beginning of life was sexual reproduction.
You tell me not to call Evolution a theory, but on the contrary, is it not called the Theory of Evolution?
I most certainly did no such thing.
You tell me not to call it "just a theory" ...
I most certainly did no such thing.
Yeah, those statements were for the people who did. I like speaking to groups as a whole, even when responding to only one person.
... (which I haven't), but in truth it would have to be "it's just some theories".
You have yet to understand the proper scientific definition of a theory.
The theory of gravitation is "just some theories" too.
As is the atomic theory.
As is the theory of relativity.
As is the germ theory of disease.
Betcha don't question the germ theory, huh?
On the other hand, I am beginning to understand quite nicely. What I meant by theories, as I said at the bottom of my message, was that it should be plural when referring to a single matter. And stop saying I'm calling it "just some theories". It was one of those "If I were to insult you I wouldn't do it like that, I would do it like this" moments.
Creo claim:
A true science must make predictions. Evolution only describes what happened in the past, so it is not predictive.
I don't claim that, so how does that change the example?
And everything you said beneath that example... I'm sorry to say has no 'impact' on me. I don't doubt science, nor its accuracy on some matters. I do doubt, however, some things in science. I'm going to paraphrase Friends of all TV shows with a change in context for a more accurate example.
Years and years ago, scientist thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They had to change that. They thought everything was made up of only four elements. They had to change that. They had no idea about cells or even what was in them, completely changing their opinion of things about life. They thought that atoms were the smallest things until they decided to open them up. What I'm saying is couldn't there be a chance - a teeny, tiny chance - that with all the reforming they have to do with their theories and ideas, that Evolution - with all its facts and evidence - could be another mistake?
*sigh* This isn't what I'm here for. I want to understand, not debate. I'll defend my views when I have to, but I'm not here to just share them and try to press them on on all the Evolutionists and try to say "see, you're wrong".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 10:09 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2008 1:51 AM Lyston has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 180 (459123)
03-04-2008 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Lyston
03-04-2008 1:28 AM


Years and years ago, scientist thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They had to change that. They thought everything was made up of only four elements. They had to change that. They had no idea about cells or even what was in them, completely changing their opinion of things about life. They thought that atoms were the smallest things until they decided to open them up. What I'm saying is couldn't there be a chance - a teeny, tiny chance - that with all the reforming they have to do with their theories and ideas, that Evolution - with all its facts and evidence - could be another mistake?
No. Creationism was the mistake. We know this 'cos of the facts and evidence that you mentioned. This is why, in common with the other prescientific views you list, it has been abandoned.
The fact that science is in a process of continual improvement is not a reason to abandon modern science and go back to the natural philosophy of the Dark Ages. It's a reason why we shouldn't.
And there's no reason why you should single out evolution for this line of reasoning. Why not say: "Scientists used to be creationists, so how do I know they're right today when they say they can split the atom"?
'Cos of the evidence, that's how.
But of course the reason that you've singled out evolution has othing to do with the history and philosophy of science, and everything to do with that book you have in your avatar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 1:28 AM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 10:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 180 (459125)
03-04-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Lyston
03-04-2008 1:05 AM


Sex v. Gender
No, there's a point.
If you're using the wrong words, then you can't look things up.
For example, I just looked in the back of my biology textbook --- 1200 pages long, and the word "gender" isn't in the index. There's plenty about sex. This is because, yes, words can vary in meaning, but biologists always say "sex", never "gender", when what they mean is "sex".
You'd find the same if you tried searching PubMed for papers that address your questions.
We just get tetchy, tell you you're using the word wrong, and then answer the question anyway. An index or a database search will not get testy, but in other ways they will be less forgiving, since you won't be able to find what you're looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 1:05 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 180 (459126)
03-04-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Lyston
03-04-2008 1:05 AM


Lyston writes:
Let's just agree to disagree.
That's not really an alternative. Within the field of biology the correct term is sex, not gender. If you have a biology book, look up gender in the index. Unless you have a biology book with a chapter on human psychology, it's not there. Besides, this thread is about the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction, which is the title of this thread and is the exact same thing as the evolutionary origin of the sexes.
There's no reason to be so paranoid, especially if, as you've claimed, you want to learn. No one's going to make up terminology, there would be no point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 1:05 AM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 10:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 114 of 180 (459130)
03-04-2008 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Lyston
03-04-2008 1:05 AM


But I'm over this argument on whether gender is correct or sex is. Maybe I should have answered the forms I fill out as "gender: masculine" instead of "gender: male", but I'm not in a caring mood.
I was suspecting that you had gone to a Christian school or a school in a place where the difference would be negligible based on your "bone bending creates mutants!" teacher but this seals the deal for me.
I have never filled out a form in a public school which asked me for my sex and used the term "gender." I still remember laughing hysterically in elementary school over the word "sex" that appeared in a form we had to take home for the fluoride "swishing" program.
Even though I agree that, for the purposes of this thread, molbiogirl is splitting hairs {ABE: meaning that the discussion can go forward and she should have answered your questions on top of dissecting your terminology}, I have to say that she is correct about the term usage.
And I also must say that you cannot have a discussion about the evolution of sexes/"genders" (which you most definitely alluded to in your OP with your talk of "guys" without a mate) without a discussion of the evolution of sexual reproduction (which is the new and, IMO, appropriate title of the OP).
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Lyston, posted 03-04-2008 1:05 AM Lyston has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2008 5:44 PM Jaderis has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 115 of 180 (459141)
03-04-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Lyston
03-03-2008 8:54 PM


I read them. I'll sum them up real quick: (1) a cell tried to repair damaged DNA by copying another's. (2) Parasite infected a cell and spread its DNA. (3) A cell tried to eat a cell, but instead copied its DNA (or something close to that).
I dare say that you did not read all of the references others have provided.
Had you bothered to look, you would have found this:
Evidence for the Evolution of Bdelloid Rotifers Without Sexual Reproduction or Genetic Exchange
David Mark Welch, Matthew Meselson
The Class Bdelloidea of the Phylum Rotifera is the largest metazoan taxon in which males, hermaphrodites, and meiosis are unknown. We conducted a molecular genetic test of this indication that bdelloid rotifers may have evolved without sexual reproduction or genetic exchange. The test is based on the expectation that after millions of years without these processes, genomes will no longer contain pairs of closely similar haplotypes and instead will contain highly divergent descendants of formerly allelic nucleotide sequences. We find that genomes of individual bdelloid rotifers, representing four different species, appear to lack pairs of closely similar sequences and contain representatives of two ancient lineages that began to diverge before the bdelloid radiation many millions of years ago when sexual reproduction and genetic exchange may have ceased.
Just a moment...
Which answers your question:
And, how are you sure that things didn't start out with sexual reproduction and asexual was a mutation?
In layman's terms, the genetic evidence strongly suggests that asexual reproduction was first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 8:54 PM Lyston has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 03-04-2008 11:08 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 116 of 180 (459151)
03-04-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by molbiogirl
03-04-2008 10:32 AM


Technical abstracts and papers are a very tough row to hoe for your average non-scientific layperson, and I'm not faring much better with that particular abstract. I think it would be very useful to put what you believe this paper is saying in your own words at the layperson's level.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by molbiogirl, posted 03-04-2008 10:32 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 117 of 180 (459158)
03-04-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Lyston
03-03-2008 8:54 PM


Hi again Lyston,
If there is a single word that defines the goals and purpose of the scientific method best, it is the word "accuracy." We may not be dead-on 100% correct, and we may never be - but we strive to make the most accurate models of observed reality possible, and we change those models in accordance with new data to impprove their accuracy. We don't claim to have all of the answers, and we'll never be able to give you the entirety of the evolutionary tree that led from single-celled organisms to human beings - just a highly accurate model with its supporting evidence. Small inaccuracies in the current evolutionary model are likely, and probably even certain to exist. Large inaccuracies (ie, biblical Creation) are so unlikely in light of the evidence that one may as well resurrect the old "planets move because they are pushed by angels" model. The current evolutionary model, according to the evidence we have gathered over the past couple hundred years, is very accurate, and is damned close to the bullseye. Creationism and the like are so detached from the evidence that they are, to follow the dartboard analogy, not even on the same dartboard. Or the same room. Or the same bar. They aren't even in the same city. An inaccuracy that large that would refute the amount of evidence in favor of evolution (which, remember, includes direct observation) would actually require a deity to purposefully plant evidence and then continue to cover up the "truth" via additional undetectable miracles and so on. While it can be said that there is a teeny, tiny, infenitisimally small chance that this is the case...I can say with a great deal of confidence, really, probably not.
So...there's my little generalized speech regarding Creationism vs. Evolution. Now, on to the specifics of your post.
So here's my questions. What happens after the initial mutation? How does it continue?
Mutations are part of an organism's DNA. When that organism reproduces, the mutation is passed on to its offspring. It's no longer technically a mutation at that point - it's no longer spontaneously occurring due to a copying error, it's an inheritable trait. The offspring will have a few new mutations of their own, of course.
And, how are you sure that things didn't start out with sexual reproduction and asexual was a mutation? I remember from a 7th grade video of single celled bacterium sending out a tentacle-like thing to another bacteria cell and transferring its DNA to it. How do you know that wasn't the first form of reproduction? I know it's an off chance, but can you prove its not possible? There is no way to tell what the first organism was, in my opinion. Maybe there is, so could someone explain that to me?
We can't "prove" much at all about life so long ago, unfortunately - single-celled creatures don't leave any fossilized remains for us to find a few million or billion years later. We can say that simpler forms of life, like viruses (who don't even use DNA - they use RNA, and yes, I understand that defining them as "alive" is fuzzy because they require host cells to reproduce) are asexual. We can also say that it's highly, highly unlikely that sexual reproduction would be able to exist with the earliest forms of life - the population size is simply too small, and you actually do run in to the "nothing to mate with" problem you originally mentioned. In the case of the very first cell, it would have nothing to mate with. There's also the fact that more "complex" forms of life (multicellular life, for example) seem to use sexual reproduction much more frequently than "simpler" forms like bacteria.
Science doesn't deal much with "proof." It deals with evidence (which is different, proof implies too much certainty) and accuracy (which is not the same as correctness - it's not black/white, true/false). We deal with what the evidence suggests, and making an accurate model based on our observations. The evidence currently seems to suggest that sexual reproduction developed later than asexual reproduction.
You tell me not to call Evolution a theory, but on the contrary, is it not called the Theory of Evolution? You tell me not to call it "just a theory" (which I haven't), but in truth it would have to be "it's just some theories". I understand that this is a field under study currently, but how can "all the evidence that supports the origins of this topic" be divided into not one, but three (four total mentioned) theories. It may be my Pro-Creation views that are biasing my opinions, but it seems hard to just say "yeah, life was created in one of those ways".
The Theory of Evolution is a single theory - it's the model of changes in allele frequency in populations over generations, guided by natural selection. It fits quite well with other theories and hypotheses, like abiogenesis (the hypothesis that life arose from non-living organic compounds), but it's compeltely seperate. For instance, the Theory of Evolution would be unaffected by the discovery that the earliest forms of life were brought here by an alien spacecraft, created by a deity, landed on Earth with a comet, or spontaneously formed from an abiotic "soup." The Theory of Evouton only describes the mechanism by which the variety of life we currently see arose from earlier forms of life - Darwin's Origin of Species, essencially. The reason people are "up in arms" is this statement you made earlier:
quote:
That's exactly what I meant. As for the first sentence, it is a belief. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, as you all know. It has evidence, but you still need to believe in it, just as one needs to believe in the concept of atoms (something that my Chem teacher of all people brought up). No matter how obvious it seems, there is a possibility (no matter how slim) that it could be wrong. That's why we are in debate.
Specifically, the sentence "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, as you all know," and the follow-up "you still need to believe in it." This is very reminiscient of a very large percentage of Creationists who say "it's just a theory" as if "theory" meant "an idea I had over lunch" in science the way it can in common usage, or the way some Creationists use the tu quoque fallacy to insist "evolution requires faith too, so our belief is just as valid." Because we've had to deal with these same arguments literally hundreds, possibly thousands of times, they can draw emotional responses.
Evolution is a theory, which in a scientific context means that it is a highly accurate, widely accepted model of an observed process supported by a large amount of evidence in the form of verified predictions.
When Creatonists say "teach both theories" and claim that Creationism, which has not proven to be in even the tiniest bit accurate, does not model any observed process, has no supporting evidence (aside from the Bible, which objectively is identical to any other form of mythological text until corroborating evidence is discovered) , and makes no testable predictions, is also a "theory," well, scientists tend to get upset.
I'm not trying to just slap down your views, as you may actually have the "Truth" in one of those theories. Please understand that. I can guarantee that once again this will be seen as "arrogant and cocky", but please understand that it's not. I can here for understanding, not to mock/put down/prove wrong/dismiss Evolution. I want to understand it, as you can tell my knowledge is minuscule and flawed; nothing more, nothing less.
I suggest then that we move on past the arguing over the word "theory" or discussions over whether "sex" or "gender" is more appropriate for the discussion. Honestly, I don't believe it's intentional on your part, but you've basically laid some bait for some of us to bite. I'll admit, if you're here for an appreciable amount of time and continue to say what can be interpreted to be "it's just a theory" or "evolution requires faith, too," I'll get just as grumpy as Taz. So let's try to move back to where we've been making good progress - the actual mechanisms of evolution, and specifically scenarios by which sexual reproduction could have arisen.
(BTW, when I say theories (plural) I'm referring to the three theories wiki mentioned as origins of "Evolution of Sexual Reproduction")
That makes a bit more sense then. The Theory of Evolution is very specific in its scope, and it's pretty broad. The theories you mention here (and I'd probably call them hypotheses myself, but that's me) are far less general and deal with the evolution of a specific feature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 8:54 PM Lyston has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by molbiogirl, posted 03-04-2008 2:01 PM Rahvin has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 118 of 180 (459178)
03-04-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rahvin
03-04-2008 11:52 AM


I suggest then that we move on past the arguing over the word "theory" or discussions over whether "sex" or "gender" is more appropriate for the discussion. ... So let's try to move back to where we've been making good progress - the actual mechanisms of evolution, and specifically scenarios by which sexual reproduction could have arisen.
Hear , hear.
Let's move on.
That makes a bit more sense then. The Theory of Evolution is very specific in its scope, and it's pretty broad. The theories you mention here (and I'd probably call them hypotheses myself, but that's me) are far less general and deal with the evolution of a specific feature.
And this is the focus of this thread. Not the ToE in general, not the definition of gender or theory. So let's see if we can keep our eye on the ball, hm, Lys?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 03-04-2008 11:52 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rahvin, posted 03-04-2008 2:27 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 119 of 180 (459184)
03-04-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by molbiogirl
03-04-2008 2:01 PM


And this is the focus of this thread. Not the ToE in general, not the definition of gender or theory. So let's see if we can keep our eye on the ball, hm, Lys?
The problem, of course, is that the general Theory of Evolution is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the evolution of a specific trait. It's like the need to understand addition before you can really grasp multiplication.
If Lyston doesn't understand how a mutation, any mutation, can be passed from parent to child for instance, how can we really discuss the gradual evolution of sexual reproduction via cumulative mutations? If we haven't yet explained how mutations are "positive" "negative" or "neutral" based primarily on the environment and selective pressures, and that these affect the allele frequency of the population and are not tied specifically to an individual organism, how can we discuss his misunderstanding that male and female must simply evolve in a single generation in parallel?
I think Lyston's initial sarcasm coupled with what appeared to be the "it's just a theory" argument later on has resulted in a lot of grumpy responses, like the way we would respond to ICANT or another long-term member after repeating the same refuted hogwash for the thousandth time. Lyston hasn't done that - he just got here. I'm willing to set aside his initial sarcasm and just treat him as a newbie who wants to understand the opposition rather than attacking the same old strawmen. I'm all for that, so I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack until and unless his curiosity and desire to learn about evolution prove to be a sham, and he turns into Generic Creationist #72364.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by molbiogirl, posted 03-04-2008 2:01 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 03-04-2008 6:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 120 of 180 (459191)
03-04-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by molbiogirl
03-03-2008 10:13 PM


What an American considers "masculine", a Tchambuli in Africa considers "feminine".
Specifically, hunting is a "masculine" activity to an American, a "feminine" one to the Tchambuli.
Getting all gussied up with makeup and such is a "feminine" trait to an American, a "masculine" trait to the Tchambuli.
Well, sure. But no body here is talking about those things. We are talking about the evolution of the two sexes. To use the word "genders" instead of "sexes" may be a slight missuse of the word, but not a really serious one, I don't think. (Some diccionaries even quote those wors as synonimes). That's why I said you were splitting hairs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 10:13 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by molbiogirl, posted 03-04-2008 5:57 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024