Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 136 (555430)
04-13-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by MrQ
04-10-2010 1:21 PM


Ok ok! Let's add it and see what happens!
Original:
Y= G(t)+R(t)-D(t)+...
We name the second reproduction parameter as g(t) now lets as add it:
Y= G(t)+g(t)+R(t)-D(t)
Now we have T(t)=G(t)+g(t) as the two reproductions are summable so formula becomes:
Y=T(t)+R(t)-D(t)
Speaking as a mathematician, I should like to say that the only practical purpose of mathematics is to make our thoughts more precise. You are abusing it to make your thoughts more obscure and more pretentious.
I would add that even if there was a role for equations in such a basic discussion of evolution (which there isn't) then there is absolutely no way that they would look anything like that.
Just try to say, in plain English, what you want to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by MrQ, posted 04-10-2010 1:21 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 2:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 136 (555490)
04-14-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by MrQ
04-13-2010 2:41 PM


Well I tried then I resorted to use math as well.
No you didn't. You used (or, more precisely, abused) mathematical notation. You did not use math. I'll let you know if you ever do.
I thought it would help and it did.
No.
You see that this issue didn't come up any more.
That is not true either. Or why am I telling you how wrong you are? Why did the post in which you came up with this pseudo-mathematical gibberish attract four hostile responses, only one of which was me telling you to stop pretending to do math?
Obviously your pretend math did not settle the issue.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 2:41 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 1:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 136 (555505)
04-14-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by MrQ
04-14-2010 1:31 AM


I couldn't agree with you more on your first statement that I didn't use mathematics but only used mathematical notation. Therefore, I don't believe your second comment is relevant. But I think Mathematical notation is relevant here as I wanted to find out what exactly is the target in evolutionary process considering all the forces that are involved. At first everybody was saying there is no target confusing the matter with a purposeful goal of some mind. I clarified it by these gibberish as you call it that what I merely mean is simple maximization or minimization of a function. I finally got proper answer from AZ3Paul of what that ultimate target is. We just have some disagreements over the naming and underlying principles of it.
Ultimately, if you had some patience you would see that there will be a great role for these gibberish. If there was in fact a ready made simple understandable mathematical equation for the main forces involved in a simple format it would have made everyone's life easier. In fact when I investigated later I found plenty of material on mathematical modeling. For example GA Genetic Algorithms as you can see is very similar to what we worked out here. We summarized all the forces as Reproduction, Genetics, Variations and Death(which still we are discussing). If you go through this link you will find that we were more or less on track and I was going to polish the original equation after we finalized the forces.
To summarize: you're totally wrong, but just let me wait a while and one of these days you'll be so right.
I may have skipped one or two of the finer details, but then so have you, for example all of them.
Your equation does not need "polishing". It needs you to tear it to pieces which you should then jump up and down on and spit on. It's hopeless.
Incidentally, what do you mean by your use of the word "we"? Are you some sort of European monarch, or what do you mean to imply by this usage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 1:31 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 136 (555515)
04-14-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by MrQ
04-14-2010 2:22 AM


Why do you think it is hopeless?!
Where do I start?
You have not even tried to ascribe any meaning to the terms. What are you trying to measure? What are the dimensions?
You aren't actually trying to do math. You're just wrapping up what you want to say in mathematical symbolism. This is not impressing anyone, and especially not those of us who know about math.
'We' stands for the whole community of people who participated ACTIVELY and POSITIVELY in this topic.
So, let's get this straight ... when you wrote "we", you felt that you were speaking, not just for yourself, but for everyone else participating on this thread --- or at least those who were "ACTIVE" and "POSITIVE", whatever that means.
Let me disabuse you of this notion. I feel fairly confident in telling you that you're on your own here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 2:22 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 4:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 136 (555615)
04-14-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by MrQ
04-14-2010 4:32 AM


But your original post would have been helpful if you could provide a better alternative.
I did. I said: "Just try to say, in plain English, what you want to say." This is, obviously, an alternative to trying to express yourself in pseudomath, and it would, obviously, be better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by MrQ, posted 04-14-2010 4:32 AM MrQ has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 136 (559904)
05-12-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by dennis780
05-11-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Hmmmm....
In the broader perspective, evolution does not answer the question, why animals have male and female partners. Evolution explains asexual organisms, and could (by a stretch) explain hermaphroditic species, such as the flat worm. In order for male-female reproduction to occur, you require two members of the same species to evolve at the same time, because without a suitable partner to mate with (within it`s lifetime), the organism carrying the suitable mutations for this to occur would die.
You've not thought this through.
You seem to admit the possibility of species reproducing sexually without having two different sexes.
Now, the crucial difference between male and female is that males produce more but smaller gametes and the female produces larger but fewer gametes.
Therefore, when a mutation first arises causing its posessor to produce (let us say) more but smaller gametes than the rest of its species, then it is male --- and every other member of its species is therefore female.
When one sex first evolves, the rest of the species is the other sex by default --- the other sex doesn't need to evolve at the same time as such.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 8:33 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 136 (559923)
05-12-2010 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by dennis780
05-12-2010 3:50 AM


Re: Hmmmm....
Wrong. Supposing that one organism of a species evolves, making the others female by default. The male must find a suitable female of the same species with proper sex organs to fertilize for offspring.
"Proper sex organs"?
As you would know if you were interested in biology, the regular way for marine species to mate is for the happy couple to emit their gametes in roughly the same place at the same time. What they both need is a hole for the emission of gametes, and this would be basal to the species by hypothesis.
If the female has not evolved, then the process of male/female reproduction is irrelevant, because for this species to exist in the first place, it would have to be asexual, so without any genetic change, it would not require a male for reproduction.
No, back up. You had already conceded the possibility of species that reproduced sexually but did not have two distinct sexes; you then wanted to know how the two sexes could arise.
Second, even if two of the same species did evolve simultanously, the genes would have to match, or the offspring would receive half information from each respective parent, but the information would not match, making the offspring sexually inactive.
Again, by conceding sexual reproduction at all, you're supposing this problem to have been solved.
Third, asexual reproduction seems favourable (to me), in that it preserves a line of genetic information perfectly, and does not require the finding of a suitable mate. Populations grow faster, giving them a distinct advantage.
Ah, the good old Argument From Undesign. This always amuses me when it's found on the lips of a creationist. Next time you're praying, perhaps you could mention to God how you think he went wrong there.
And again, I would remind you that you conceded sexual reproduction --- you were asking about the origin of sexes, a question that I have answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 3:50 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 136 (559941)
05-12-2010 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by dennis780
05-12-2010 4:45 AM


Re: Hmmmm....
I was refering to reproductive organs such as the penis, but I can do fish as well.
Both mutations still have to occur at the same time. If the female lays eggs, but no males have developed, no fertilization. If male developes but no eggs, nothing to fertilize. Same problem.
The original species, by hypothesis, released identical haploid gametes which fertilized one another. With the evolution of the male, this process would continue as before. The only difference is that the male produces more and smaller gametes.
" You had already conceded the possibility of species that reproduced sexually"
Asexually
"Again, by conceding sexual reproduction at all, you're supposing this problem to have been solved."
Asexual reproduction, yes. Male/female, no. Your dancing. I can feel it.
"And again, I would remind you that you conceded sexual reproduction"
Asexual reproduction. Yes. Why the hell would I concede the point I am debating? Your not making any sense.
You wrote: "Evolution explains asexual organisms, and could (by a stretch) explain hermaphroditic species, such as the flat worm."
I therefore took as my starting point a species which reproduced sexually but did not have distinct sexes, which was what you apparently wanted explaining.
If you now want to shift the goalposts, you should say so like a man instead of descending into hysteria, nonsense, and lies:
I get it. YOU don't know. Do you? You really don't know. And like every other evolutionist that meets a creationist with a valid point, you do they ol' I know you are but what am I? hahahahaha. Your funny. I think I'll keep you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 4:45 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dennis780, posted 05-13-2010 10:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 136 (560263)
05-14-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by dennis780
05-13-2010 10:17 PM


Re: Hmmmm....
"The original species, by hypothesis, released identical haploid gametes which fertilized one another."
I don`t disagree with hermaphroditic sex. This would follow accurately the evolutionary trend.
At some given point in history, organisms must have made a switch to male/female reproduction. Since each sex would have needed to evolve at the same time, this seems like a roadblock on the evolutionary highway.
Then I suggest that you read my posts.
"I therefore took as my starting point a species which reproduced sexually but did not have distinct sexes, which was what you apparently wanted explaining."
As I said before, I have no issues with asexual reproduction, or hermaphroditic reproduction, as these to not REQUIRE the opposite sex for reproduction. My issue is, and always has been, with male/female reproduction.
Then I suggest that you read my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by dennis780, posted 05-13-2010 10:17 PM dennis780 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