Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

Hi CTD,The responses you've drawn so far have put more effort into ridicule than explanation, so in case it isn't painfully obvious by now, let me explain why this drew the responses it did: Even before Darwin it was understood that only those able to reproduce can contribute to the next generation. It is a fundamental tenet of evolution that mutations, which can range from favorable to neutral to unfavorable, can affect differential reproductive success, and that mutations preventing reproduction, being especially unfavorable, will quickly be removed from the gene pool.In other words, you accused evolution of not being aware of something that is actually one of its defining characteristics.Those like you and Lyston who have no idea what evolution actually says can convince others equally ignorant that evolution has some flaw and then cast ridicule at the strawman you've built. This is often called lying for Christ, but I think you two honestly have no idea about evolution, so it would be more accurate to call this ignorance for Christ.Lyston's problems with mutations are mistaken because his understanding of evolution is fatally flawed beyond belief, as apparently is your own. The irony is that the wise-guy approach you and Lyston employ backfires especially strongly when based on such profound ignorance, which is why you're drawing sarcastic responses. And the ignorance appears to be insatiable, for at least in your case you have worked hard in your time here to maintain that ignorance, and Lyston seems destined for the same.If you'd like to understand evolution, there are plenty here who can explain it to you, and once you understand what it actually says then you can criticize it to your heart's content. But there's little point to carrying on in your current way.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Yet no one interpreted it this way. Either you meant what you appeared to be saying and wildly misunderstand evolution, or you were so wildly off-topic that no one could see what point you were making.This thread is about the evolution of sexual reproduction (I'll modify the title). If you have off-topic points to make in obscure ways, such as about how forgetful evolutionists are about their own theory, then please propose a new thread.--Percy

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.

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

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

--Percy

Hi, Lyston, a couple comments.First, just to clarify a bit more, while you are largely correct when you define theory, where people are taking issue is when you say something like, "it's just a theory," or, "it's a theory, not a fact." The reality is that in science, attainment of status as accepted theory is the highest of achievements for a particular way of interpreting the natural world. Being dismissive of theory is not all that dissimilar to being dismissive of the winning of a Nobel prize.Second, I confess to surprise at what you say you've accepted about evolution so far. I think many evolutionists would agree that at a very high level discussions with creationists break down into two stages. Stage 1 is convincing the creationist of what evolution really says. Notice that stage 1 is not convincing the creationist that evolution is true, but just to convince him of what evolution really says. Stage 2 is actually discussing evolution as defined by evolutionary biologists.I don't think we're up to stage 2 yet, but we're well into stage 1. We rarely make much progress at all in stage 1, so as I said, this is somewhat of a surprise.--Percy

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

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

Yes, I know. I was only trying to get you to again consider that the reason you think the title is misrepresentative of your topic is because you are rejecting correct definitions.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The author of any thread can change the title himself by editing Message 1.--Percy

Yes, I'm Admin.--Percy