Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
299 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, nwr, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 293 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,214 Year: 4,326/6,534 Month: 540/900 Week: 64/182 Day: 36/16 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 214 (364387)
11-17-2006 3:49 PM


In the interest of being fair and balanced, I believe that it would be handy to present a list of the common Bait & Switch Tactics used by so many of the Evolutionists. The purpose of the thread is to give people a guide to help them identify when they are being conned.

I will start off with some of the more common cons pushed by evos.

1. Defining a word one way in order to justify the same term but a different meaning. This happens most notably with the word, evolution. Evos will define evolution as heritable change and thus a fact, and go on then to use that to suggest that macroevolution is a fact.

2. The reliance on semantics in general. Evos, for example, have pushed various, different theories all by the name of Recapitulation, and despite several being disproven, they come up with a new version called by the same name to avoid, imo, the fact their facts were wrong, and recapitulation was a myth.

3. Reliance on faked data, and continual reliance on it for decades and decades when there was ample, open, and clear evidence pointed out over and over again that the data was false. Haeckel's embryos are a good example of this, but in a lesser manner, there are other examples such as the slowness to present Neanderthals as human, the peppered moth being glued to trees, etc,....

5. Creating child Neanderthal skulls with a protruding chin when none exists. A good example of fitting the data, or manufacturing data, to fit the theory rather than the other way around.

6. The idea that natural selection is an agent for macroevolution, completely unsubstantiated as the forces of natural selection appear to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.

7. The idea that microevolution is an example of macroevolution writ small. Once again, it's a false idea because the forces of microevolution tend to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.\

8. Claiming the fossil record shows evolutionary transitions when in reality, it shows the opposite.

I could go on and on, but perhaps some other critics of evolution would like to add to the list......after all, we want to make sure people are not conned. :)

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Codegate, posted 11-17-2006 5:27 PM randman has replied
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2006 10:42 AM randman has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-19-2006 9:45 PM randman has taken no action
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2006 6:15 AM randman has replied
 Message 136 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-29-2006 6:36 PM randman has replied

Codegate
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 2 of 214 (364400)
11-17-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-17-2006 3:49 PM


As with jar's thread, I would like to point out that none of these are 'bait and switch' tactics but I also know what you are trying to say.

I would like to start off by asking you to expand on your points and give examples of each of them. It's hard for me to believe that a statement like "Claiming the fossil record shows evolutionary transitions when in reality, it shows the opposite." is anything other then a falsehood without something to back it up.

I also have some problems with how evolution is presented both in this forum and to the public in general.

1. Terms with multiple meanings, such as "evolution" are used freely without defining exactly what is meant in a particular context. This makes it difficult to understand what trying to be said. It's hard, if not impossible to debate a scientific topic without exact definitions.

2. I really dislike many of the pictorals that I see showing evolution in progress as they do use a lot of 'interpretation'. Often times a partial fossil find with an extremely limited selection of bones is taken and this wonderful picture is created that somehow shows how the actual creature looked. Every one of these should have a big splash across them saying that it is an artists interpretation of a limited fossil.

3. Many times people will imply, if not say outright, that we have a complete fossil record including transitionals. These cases are the exception and not the rule. Fossilization is a rare occurance and we just don't have that many for most of the taxa out there. Not only that but many of the 'transitionals' are not complete skeletons by any stretch of the imagination and require a great deal of interpretation. For some branches of the evolutionary process we do have a complete, and pretty irrefutable record, but as I said above, this is the exception rather then the rule.

(Note that I am making many blanket statements above which are from my current understanding of things. If I have made any false statements, please point them out and point me at a source where I can learn otherwise).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 3:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 5:39 PM Codegate has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 214 (364404)
11-17-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Codegate
11-17-2006 5:27 PM


quick response, more later
On the fossil record, what we actually see on totality is a massive lack of transitional evidence. Basically, using the term "transitional" is somewhat dubious in and of itself because it implies the fossil in question actually evolved, and generally there is no evidence of this. Evos get around this by saying the fossil shows features of creatures before and creatures afterwards and so even if it didn't evolve, it is "transitional."

Secondly, what is not being said is the transitions are just not seen. There is absolutely no macroevolutionary transition seen whatsoever. There are fossils of creatures with massive gaps, thousands of missins transitions, if they occurred at all, where evos place the fossil in between various creatures to create the appearance of a transition when in reality, the fossil record is well-nigh proof that gradualistic transitions did not occur.

Some evos acknowledge this from time to time, and come up with various hopeful monster theories, which though seeming outlandish, actually make a lot more sense than ignoring the data and pretending small, gradualistic changes can and have added up to macroevolution.

In reality, the fossil record stands out very strong against mainstream evo models.

On the terms, pictorials and presenting interpretations as data, I agree with you. I do think, however, using the term "rare occurence" is also poorly defined. It's not that clear, for example, if whale species or genus, fossilization is very rare at all, given geologic time-frames. One of my beefs with evos is using the claim of fossil rarity to explain away the lack of transitionals.

For example, we have thousands of some types of creature's fossils. So even though the occurence is rare per the individual, it may not be rare for the species. I don't think "rarity" has really been quantified, or established, as pertaining to large mammals for example, on whether we should expect most of them to show fossils or not. Why, for example, do we see a lot of horse fossils and whale fossils, but such an absence of the fossils in whale evolution. The vast majority of forms are missing, and yet there are good examples of thousands of fossils of just one form, or type of whale or cetacean.

Why Basilosaurus being so present, and nothing for the most part showing how it could have transitioned to modern whales, or just a few possibles?

The fossil record appears to show an abruptness indicative of either a hopeful monster type of mechanism or ID, not gradualism.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Codegate, posted 11-17-2006 5:27 PM Codegate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2006 6:46 AM randman has taken no action

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 4 of 214 (364505)
11-18-2006 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
11-17-2006 5:39 PM


1. natural selection

bait - the survival and reproduction of organisms is a physical process as can be observed

switch - therefore natural selection / differential reproductive success is a physical process

actual - natural selection is actually a comparison of physical processes, it compares reproductionrates, but the comparison is not a physical process. Natural selection solely occurs in the minds of people, there are no comparisons being made in nature between types of organisms.

2. material emotions
bait - alcohol is a chemical, if somebody drinks it their emotional state generally changes

switch - therefore emotions are chemical processes in nature working by cause and effect

actual - when talking about alcohol influencing emotional states, we are looking at alcohol from an anticipation-theory point of view, such as that the alcohol interrupts the rhythm in which we make decisions, it reorganizes the centers of decision in our brain. So our emotions aren't chemical processes in any usual sense of the term working by cause and effect, they are in stead processes of chances being decided in a network of decisioncenters, controlled by immaterial states such as pleasure and pain.

3. evolutionary morality
bait - when talking about goodness in a Darwinian sense, then that is just a technical meaning of goodness as meaning enhancing chances of survival and reproduction, it does not mean moral goodness

switch - there is no such thing as a spiritual goodness or evil, it can't be observed so for as far as science goes it doesn't exist

actual - So to say first Darwinians accept a spiritual goodness so to make natural selection theory distinct from that spiritual goodness and have the theory be descriptive rather then prescriptive. Then they turn around and deny that there is any spiritual realm at all, leaving Darwinian goodness as the only goodness, and natural selection theory as defacto a moral theory about valueing complexity, life, survival and reproduction.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 5:39 PM randman has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2006 6:06 AM Syamsu has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 214 (364711)
11-19-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-17-2006 3:49 PM


Randman writes:

6. The idea that natural selection is an agent for macroevolution, completely unsubstantiated as the forces of natural selection appear to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.

7. The idea that microevolution is an example of macroevolution writ small. Once again, it's a false idea because the forces of microevolution tend to limit genetic diversity, not increase it.\

8. Claiming the fossil record shows evolutionary transitions when in reality, it shows the opposite.

I could go on and on, but perhaps some other critics of evolution would like to add to the list......after all, we want to make sure people are not conned.

Hi Randman. Nice to talk to you again. I do miss your imput in the other forums. I especially appreciate the points you have made in this thread and have cited you in POM as speaking for many of us.

1. Regarding #6, would sexual harmony in alleged macroevolution be a problem evolutionists would have in species changes.

2. What is your thinking on abiogenisis relative to the need for reproduction including all the complexities which the sex/reproductive factor would present for it to continue once generated for survival in the earliest stage of alleged abiogenisis. Perhaps you might open a thread here on that if you think it worth discussing as I've wondered about it for a long time. I brought it up in my recent Is It Science thread as one of the things evolutionists appear to be sweeping under the rug but see nobody responded to my remark there. I'm not sure whether it would apply to this thread or not.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 3:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 11-19-2006 4:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 214 (364775)
11-19-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
11-19-2006 10:42 AM


long time.....nice to talk with you as well
On abiogenesis, I need to review your comments elsewhere to know for sure exactly the specific problems you want to discuss, but there is certainly a multitude. Woese believes that the 3 kingdoms could not have emerged via normal vertical evolution or natural selection as we know it, and so proposes a progenote, which is a hypothetical creature with a breakdown in the precise linkage between genes and features. I need to brush up on it again, but the idea is that beneficial features could be passed on horizontally within the community of these pre-life forms until populations could emerge.

Another way to look at this is that the data we do have indicates that the 3 kingdoms could not have emerged from a common living ancestor. The solution could be they didn't evolve at all, or that they evolved all 3 independently via abiogenesis.

In my opinion, the abiogenesis thing is pretty far-fetched to take seriously as a scientific theory since there is really no evidence whatsoever for it. It's fine for a hypothesis of spontaneous generation, but it just doesn't cut it when it comes to empirical support.

In terms of self-duplicating and self-emerging RNA prototypes, it's so speculative, often based on ideas of the early atmosphere that were wrong, that I think there are lots of problems that basically are unanswered. Rocks do change "on their own", sometimes forming crystals, etc,.....Imo, if within chemistry, there is an ability "on it's own" to evolve into biology, that really is evidence of a product of the design of whoever created the principles of chemistry. So I am not wholly against the concept of abiogenesis, but would have to say that abiogenesis should rightly be understood as part of Intelligent Design embedded into the universe.

The problem, of course, is we have no real evidence of abiogenesis.

All that may have missed your point, however....I'll take a look at those threads you mentioned....

On sexual harmony, I have to confess I am not sure either if I got your point completely, but certainly the idea evos put forward that sexual isolation leads to speciation would still limit genetic diversity, not increase it. So if speciation occurs or subspeciation, that works against macroevolution by limiting genetic diversity, as Faith argued here quite some time without anyone answering substantively. The claim of evos is that mutations can add the material needed, but evos also have theories of rates of mutation where it is hard to imagine the rate of beneficial mutation outweighing factors such as sexual and geographic isolation in speciation or variation, in terms of limiting genetic diversity.

Thanks for your comments at the beginning, btw.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2006 10:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2006 8:36 PM randman has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4269 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 214 (364806)
11-19-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-17-2006 3:49 PM


criticism for neglecting possible teleology position based
I have finally discovered what is both the cause of my less than A+ work in genetics at Cornell and the persistant distaste for some attempts to fuse religion in science in the name of change(evolutionary theory).

It has to do with 'isolating' traits
(in Carter's sense)


Click to enlarge

quote:

Click to enlarge


NOT geneticized because they are only statistically possible in the current evo theory and thus are being "thrown" out of the discussion being "bad" for the work. But in my case it was ME, via my bad genes (ones that might or might not work) that got "thrown out".


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

quote:

Click to enlarge


I get myself out of the faulty reference to "Calvanism" by a reflection on Pascal. Most of it is uploaded under a PowerPoint called ONPASCAL
The Trainer's product PAGE

The interesting reference to Baetson during WW1 shows how there is tension between the "selling" of the core Darwinian logic vs. the DOUBLE(Mendelizing fraction TO penetrance) statistical remove of those parts of organisms (genetically) that are subject to biogeography today. This also explains why Croizat's approach was not well redressed.

Thanks to EvC, I have been able to retain a suffiently broad enough perspective to recover what was missing in the same environment (war vs no war), that my Mother say, would accept as a compatible relation between science and religion. THIS IS NOT where the point that Hardin makes belongs. ID "invaded" this area but some of the "tools" to make this point cleaer were not available until the end of the 80s by which time I was aready "out". Genetics may have been thinkable as Calvanistic in the first Wwar but it is not in today's globalizing culture, in my opinion. My mom will always disagree. Such is my generation. That much I posses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-17-2006 3:49 PM randman has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 214 (365030)
11-20-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
11-19-2006 4:26 PM


Re: long time.....nice to talk with you as well
Randman writes:

All that may have missed your point, however....I'll take a look at those threads you mentioned....


There was only this one message that I remember addressing what I'm aluding to:

Buzsaw threadAll that may have missed your point, however....I'll take a look at those threads you mentioned.... quote writes:

Hi Ned. The problem with your advice is that your interpretation of the observed requires replication whereas the Genesis hypothesis does not. You don't replicate sudden creation of a pair of a species which go on to propagate into millions relatively rapidly by design of an eternal supreme architect. Your hypothesis/theory allegedly takes billions of years to produce one species from scratch, i.e. form some kind of mysterious singularity bit of space and even likely millions to get from the soup to living thinking breathing sexy organism capable of and inclined to reproducing so as not to die out before the mate get's caught up in the process. (I always wondered how the first species of anything survived long enough to syncranize with the evoluton of a mate capable of reproduction?? Seems as though you'd need millions or billions of the same thing evolving until one came out capabable of and willing to bed down with the lover with all the complex serum and anatomy parts required for business. Abe: How likely is that going to happen? The lonely first organism must have allegedly had to achieve some kind of pretty deviant orgies to even begin to originate the process and accomplish a lot in a hurry before it died.

Hey, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm serious. That's gotta be quite a feat with nothing capable of thinking to oversee and guide/design the process, hasn't it now when the brightest of wonderfully intelligent beings can't even create simple life with all our sophisticated technology?

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=273&m=1#18 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=273&m=1#18">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=273&m=1#18

Do you see what I'm saying, Rand? How is any living organism going to advance without a means of reproducing before dying. Not only that, but primordal soup would have to be a terribly poor environment for the advancement of some chemicals which allegedly united to form life.

I'm not authorized to do threads here. This is likely off topic to your thread here. It might be interesting for you to open a thread to address this in Showcase if you might be so inclined. If not, no problem.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 11-19-2006 4:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 12:30 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 135 by randman, posted 12-15-2006 12:10 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 214 (365147)
11-21-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
11-20-2006 8:36 PM


Re: long time.....nice to talk with you as well
I'll do something after Thanksgiving as to do it now, well, I may not be around. I think the general evo argument is asexual creatures developed first, but there is still the issue of how sexual reproduction arose in the first place......the likelihood of a male and female evolving at the same time, same place, and then producing off-spring is incredibly remote, and borders on miraculous. At least, we see the process of creation and design when we create and design things. Evos have never seen anything close to occuring via natural causes that would evolve sexual reproduction from scratch, but then again, the more you look at evo theories, there are tons of facts, hard data, logic, etc,....that shows the theory is all smoke and mirrors and no substance. It's not a fact-based theory.

I suspect evos imagine that asexual reproduction evolved to the point that a creature mated with itself, instead of just duplicated it's cell-structure. How that would happen or be more suited to survival, of cours, is a mystery, but then imagining further, evos probably say the creature split one day while mating, and wholla, there was a male and a female......still invoking near-magic, but ample use of the imagination is a big part of myth-making.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2006 8:36 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 1:28 PM randman has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 10 of 214 (365156)
11-21-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
11-21-2006 12:30 PM


male and female
the likelihood of a male and female evolving at the same time, same place, and then producing off-spring is incredibly remote, and borders on miraculous.

That's a truly hilarious example of the kind of misunderstanding that is so common among creationists.

In biological terms, sex is an exchange of genetic material. We already see genetic exchange among bacteria, with conjugation. Sex is just an alternative way of implementing such exchanges.

There are also many species that are hermaphrodite, so can exchange genetic material bidirectionally. I don't know the evolutionary history of separate male/female, but it would not surprise me if it evolved out of hermaphroditism. The idea that it required something near miraculous is quite silly.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 12:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 1:46 PM nwr has seen this message

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 214 (365162)
11-21-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
11-21-2006 1:28 PM


Re: male and female
already predicted the hermaphrodite argument, nwr.....there is no misunderstanding or ignorance.....generally creationists and IDers understand evo arguments very well, as we have all been taught them, but the same cannot be said for the other side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 1:28 PM nwr has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2006 6:22 PM randman has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3330 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 12 of 214 (365208)
11-21-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-21-2006 1:46 PM


Re: male and female
If....

I suspect evos imagine that asexual reproduction evolved to the point that a creature mated with itself

... was supposed to describe hermaphroditism then we have appear to have found yet another scientific concept you have misunderstood.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 1:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 6:35 PM Wounded King has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 214 (365215)
11-21-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Wounded King
11-21-2006 6:22 PM


Re: male and female
You mean like you guys universally misunderstanding quantum physics, recapitulation, fossils, etc, etc,....?

My experience with evos is that they tend to use terms with several, various meanings interchangeably. So I prefer to focus on the process....my suspicion is evos argue that asexual reproduction or organisms reproducing without being male and female first emerged, and that then maleness and femaleness emerged within one organism and split later into male and female, or they argued that creatures evolved into being male and female at the same time. If that is incorrect, please offer the just-so story evos do use. I would be quite interested.

For clarity sake, I assume nwr's comment on hermaphrodite's is what he commented on.

I don't know the evolutionary history of separate male/female, but it would not surprise me if it evolved out of hermaphroditism.

Not sure where you think a misunderstanding has taken place, WK. At some point, males and females would have to simultaneously emerge as separate. I pointed out briefly that they would have to either evolve at the same time, or a male and female creature would have to split into 2. Either way, it seems there is considerable challenged for the evo position. Note: I did not say hermaphrodites mate with themselves, though perhaps this is a possibility for evos when discussing the imagined scenarios for sex evolution.

Do you have sdifferent scenario? I would not be surprised if evos could imagine another one.....what is it?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2006 6:22 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 6:56 PM randman has replied
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 11-22-2006 3:06 AM randman has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 14 of 214 (365224)
11-21-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-21-2006 6:35 PM


Re: male and female
Not sure where you think a misunderstanding has taken place, WK.

Obviously it is in "a creature mated with itself". That's not what hermaphroditism is about.


Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 6:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 11-22-2006 3:07 AM nwr has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3330 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 214 (365287)
11-22-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-21-2006 6:35 PM


Re: male and female
You claimed to have already 'predicted' NWR's argument, I assumed you meant you had done so in this thread, did you only mean you had predicted it in your head?

If you [b]did[/i] mean in the thread then I am at a loss to see where you think you made any such prediction unless it is in the sentence I quoted which described the organism mating with itself.

I would not be surprised if evos could imagine another one.....what is it?

If there arises in a population of sexually reproducing hermaphroditic organisms a lineage which has lost one set of sex organs. Since hermaphroditic systems can sometimes results in self fertilisation not having both sets of organs would both reduce the neccessary metabolic cost of building and maintaining both and also make sexual reproduction obligate thereby reducing the risk of selfing. One sex could easily arise before the other in such a system.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-21-2006 6:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 11-22-2006 3:12 AM Wounded King has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022