Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:24 PM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK (4 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,595 Year: 3,632/19,786 Month: 627/1,087 Week: 217/212 Day: 32/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 46 of 78 (366033)
11-26-2006 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
11-24-2006 11:59 AM


Re: Hermaphrodite to sexes
Paulk writes:

In a hermaphroditic species it can be an advantage to be male. Males invest fewer resources in the reproductive process itself, so a successful male can produce more offspring than a hermaphrodite.

Paul, you are dead-on in this. While it doesn't directly relate to the evolution of sex it is a major factor in the maintenance of the simultaneous hermaphroditic system.

In species using this system there is always strong selective pressure to 'cheat', reproduce only as a male. And in those species (all of them that I know of) there are factors in place to prevent this. Some fishes, like Serranidae (groupers) have a very long mating process that involves the release of a few eggs from one, a little sperm from the other, some eggs from the other, and so on. This prevents one from merely fertilizing the eggs of the other. They go back and forth until both are empty.

In some simultanously hermaphroditic shrimp they live in monogamous pairs. The ovarian development is bright green and visible though the carapace. This insures both partners know the reproductive state of the other.

A very good hypothesis on the 'love darts' of terrestrial snails suggests that they may also be anti-cheating mechanisms. The courtship period involves destructive impalement by both members. They literally stab each other all over with serrated blades! In some species there is a high degree of mortality associated with this. The numbers game involves the probability of you or your mate being killed . It sounds bizarre (and it is!) but it works out. If you mate only as a male but are killed you ultimately win. But if you cheat and your partner dies, you lose (you have no eggs, and your sperm dies with them). So it works out to not cheat and hedge your bets by reproducing both ways. This way, unless both are killed, your genes are passed on.


Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2006 11:59 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19757
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 47 of 78 (367001)
11-29-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2006 11:00 AM


Its being realistic.

No it isn't. Being realistic is to say that we don't know what the possibilities are\were, thus we cannot say that it was improbable, nor can we say that it was highly likely.

I really fail to understand why the probability issue is so hard to grasp realistically.

Let's say I have three di in my hand. Each one has a number of sides on it, but you don't know how many and each could be different. You don't know if the sides are equal or not, or if they are perpendicular to the center of mass of the di, thus each side could have different metastable conditions affecting likelyhood of balance on that face. You don't know how the di are marked.

What is the probability that I will throw a "7" eh? You can't even calculate how many different possibilities of arrangements there are that affect the calculation of the possibilities of results.

The realistic answer is "we don't know - there isn't enough information to know" and any pretense otherwise is just a logical fallacy of one kind or another.

I have asked the question why nature would have selected sex over asexual reproduction.

The answer that comes back is that if evolution was involved then there was either a survival advantage or a reproductive advantage.

And likely the later, seeing as an organism that develops a feature that allows it to cause other organisms to reproduce its offspring doesn't have to spend its resources and energy on the process, and so it has more time and energy to use causing other organisms to reproduce its offspring.

Also as noted there are bacteria that inject DNA into other bacteria, and there are snails that wage the war of the sexes at a very basic level: whoever impregnates the other gets to play the "daddy" role, they get an offspring without having to spend its resources and energy on the process, and so it has more time and energy to use causing other snails to reproduce its offspring, while the other gets to play the "mommy" role and has to spend its resources and energy to form and bear the offspring before getting back into the battle: there are life forms that exhibit intermediate stages between complete asexual reproduction and complete sexual reproduction.

{abe} see Message 42 for some comments on the evolution stages of sex {/abe}

In a static population there is usually only one offspring per set of parents survives to adulthood.

Not at all. There are usually way more offspring produced in the course of reproductive life of the parents, even for ones that only bare 1 young per pregnancy (and which is not the norm eh?).

There are usually way more offspring than there are parents, whether the population is static, increasing or decreasing. What controls the population size is natural selection, not birth rate.

... asexual reproduction is twice as fast as sexual reproduction, ...

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Consider a process whereby you would have to split down the middle and progressively fill in the gap with copies of cells from the right side onto the left side and from the left side onto the right side until the two halves could seperate into two new individuals. You would need much more cell division -- PLUS cell migration to the appropriate place -- than occurs in the development of a fetus, and based on time for that cell division ALONE to take place it would take much longer.

Then you have long periods of gestation, ...

Not for the male. The male has zero time for gestation and rarely needs more than a few minutes to be ready for the next mating.

This also means that the males have time and energy to provide defense for their offspring (and any females that are producing them), so that rather than a whole population of individuals incapacitated by dividing down the middle for over a year or so, you have some to ward off predators so the whole population can survive.

How, then, is sexual reproduction less costly than asexual propagation?

For the same reason that having specialized organs within an organism is less costly than having all the cells capable of doing all the jobs: specialization and sharing.

Think of a population of a sexual species as a number of super organisms, where individuals are specialized organs within a {population body} -- it is essentially "asexual" in its reproduction of new {population bodies} of the same species, and the {population body} divides when conditions are right, without input from other {species}.

(hmm. this applies to the Is death a product of evolution too ... )

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : typo, added ref to Lithodid_Man's excellent post


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2006 11:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 78 (368653)
12-09-2006 1:59 PM


Evolutionists can't explain Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction

In their article entitled The Origin of Gender and Sexual Production the authors Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. wrote the following:

quote:
"In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]

The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35)....

When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]....

It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.

‘No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away’[32]

Again, from an evolutionary viewpoint, sex would be considered “absurd.” But from a design viewpoint, it is nothing short of incredible!"


Secondly, creationists Jonathon Safarti and Michael Matthews wrote:

quote:
"Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently."

The evolutionist apologetic website TalkOrigins.org poorly attempts to defend the evolutionary position regarding the origin of gender and sexual reproduction by stating the following:

quote:
"The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible.(Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes."

The creationist apologetic website CreationWiki responds to TalkOrigins.org by responding:

quote:
"As is so often the case, Talk Origins misses the point. The problem with an evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction is not so much the lack of a path, but that mutation and natural selection are incapable of doing the job. An evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction requires the development of two totally different but mutually compatible systems of organs; this multiplies the potential problems and increases the likelihood of failure.

Also, the Talk Origins article overstates what the Kondrashov article actually stated. Here is what the Kondrashov article abstract states:

"The life cycles of cellular species are reviewed from the genetic perspective. Almost all life cycles include stages during which only one genome is transmitted from a parent to its offspring. This, together with interorganismal gene exchange, which occurs regularly in at least some prokaryotes and in the majority of eukaryotes, allows selection to evaluate different alleles more or less independently. Regular genetic changes due to intraorganismal ploidy cycles or recombination may also be important in life cycles of many unicellular forms. Eukaryotic amphimixis is generally similar in all taxa, but the current data on the phylogeny and reproduction of unicellular eukaryotes are insufficient to determine whether it evolved several times or just once. Theoretically , gradual origin of amphimixis from apomixis, with each step favored by natural selection, is feasible. However, we still do not know how this process occurred nor what selection caused it. For reasons not entirely clear, some properties of amphimictic life cycles are much less variable and more conservative than the others. Evolution of many aspects of reproduction requires more theoretical studies, while the existing data are insufficient to choose among the currently competing hypotheses. (emphasis added)[1]"

(regarding the abstract quote above: "Amphimixis is another term for sexual reproduction, generally by the fusion of a male and female gamete and subsequent recombination. The opposite of amphimixis is apomixis: asexual (clonal) reproduction." [2] )

There is a difference between possible and theoretically feasible. Furthermore, the abstract adds some scholarly caution in that it states "we still do not know how this process occurred nor what selection caused it" and also adds that the evolutionists are currently choosing between competing hypothesis."


The evolutionist apologetic website TalkOrigins also defends the evolutionary position quite poorly by stating:

quote:
"Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against."


CreationWiki.org effectively responds by stating:

quote:
1. Brown did not say that “Males and females would have to evolve independently,” what he did say was that the “complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.” The point is that both systems would have had to evolve without mutual influence.

2.Talk Origins claim, that Males and females must have evolved together because sexual reproduction requires both, is circular reasoning. It is true that for them to evolve they would have to evolve together, but this is Brown’s point, since getting 2 complex but mutually compatible systems to evolve step by step and side by side is incredibly small.

3. The fact that any incompatibility would be selected against, would also tend to prevent any significant change that could lead to sexual reproduction, unless it occurred nearly perfectly in both systems.


Lastly, I would ask the evolutionists this question which a friend of mine posed to an evolutionist: The human female reproductive mechanism uses scent. The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step?

References

www.creationwiki.org ,(Talk.Origins) Sex can't have evolved at: http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Sex_can%27t_have_evolved

Jonathon Safarti and Michael Matthews, Argument: Evolution of sex at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter11.asp

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. , The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction at http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2006 2:12 PM timothy44 has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 49 of 78 (368658)
12-09-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by timothy44
12-09-2006 1:59 PM


Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Since much of your post has been discussed in this thread but you posted exactly what you put in the new thread without change or reference to those discussions I wonder if you intend to debate and discuss in good faith.

If you don't you will lose posting priviledges for periods of time.

I suggest that your next post demonstrate that you have actually read this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 1:59 PM timothy44 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 2:37 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 78 (368662)
12-09-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminNosy
12-09-2006 2:12 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
I thought BertThompson, PHD made some points that the evolutionists at this forum did not address. For example, the Thompson quote states and pay close attention to the bolded portions:

quote:
The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35)....

When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]....

It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.

‘No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away’[32]


Also, even a proevolutionary position science journal article was forced to admit:

quote:
Theoretically , gradual origin of amphimixis from apomixis, with each step favored by natural selection, is feasible. However, we still do not know how this process occurred nor what selection caused it. For reasons not entirely clear, some properties of amphimictic life cycles are much less variable and more conservative than the others. Evolution of many aspects of reproduction requires more theoretical studies, while the existing data are insufficient to choose among the currently competing hypotheses. (emphasis added)[1]"


Lastly, I thought this question posed to evolutionists was very relevant:

Lastly, I would ask the evolutionists this question which a friend of mine posed to an evolutionist: The human female reproductive mechanism uses scent. The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step?

Edited by timothy44, : No reason given.

Edited by timothy44, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2006 2:12 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:00 PM timothy44 has responded
 Message 55 by platypus, posted 12-09-2006 3:34 PM timothy44 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 51 of 78 (368668)
12-09-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by timothy44
12-09-2006 2:37 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
I don't understand your continued questions.

When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent.

Well, no, Lithodid-Mand was not silent. He attempted to answer the question.

Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”

What was unconvincing about L-man's explanation?

-

quote:
The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step?

Is this really hard? Let's imagine a scenario. Cells always emit waste products. Some of these waste products will be proteins and metabolic wastes that are only produced by cells. Many single-celled organisms exhibit chemotaxis -- that is, they are attracted or repelled by sources of certain chemicals in the environment, indicating food to be consumed or poisons to be avoided. It may take a slight change in the detection machinery to become sensitive to particular metabolic products, and so be attracted to a potential food source and (in the case of sexual reproduction, or the pseudo-sexual reproduction described by L-man) potential mates.

Once a species exhibits this sort of attraction to other cells, a cell which produces (and so emits) a protein that is better at triggering the attraction mechanism in a member of the same species will attract more mates than other cells which do not. Now you have a positive feedback system, where the emitted chemicals are better at attracting the other cells, and the detecting mechanisms become better at detecting this chemical.

This system is then incorporated into the sexual reproduction mechanism as multicellularity evolves.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 2:37 PM timothy44 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:12 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 78 (368675)
12-09-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 3:00 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Chiroptera,

You wrote:

quote:
What was unconvincing about L-man's explanation?

For one, I don't believe he adequetly addressed the following by Dr. Thompson:

quote:
How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]....

It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.

‘No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away’[32]


Secondly, I don't think he adequately adressed CreationWiki's objections.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:00 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:20 PM timothy44 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 53 of 78 (368677)
12-09-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by timothy44
12-09-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Hi, tim.

I have to give you a bit of a warning before the moderators do: it is considered bad form here to simply quote other sources without adding content of your own. In your case, you are giving the impression that you are not reading the other posts. For example:

quote:
For one, I don't believe he adequetly addressed the following by Dr. Thompson:

How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?

A moderator is going to pop in here and get angry if you don't give a more detailed explanation why L-man's description is not adequate. I mean, he did explain how female and male differentiation occurred. I'm not sure myself that it is correct, but what problems do you have with it?

-

quote:
Secondly, I don't think he adequately adressed CreationWiki's objections.

I don't understand the CreationWiki quote. Why don't you explain the problem in your own words?


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:12 PM timothy44 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:28 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 78 (368679)
12-09-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Chiroptera,

You wrote:

quote:
I don't understand the CreationWiki quote.

What is it that you don't understand about the CreationWiki quotes I cited in my post?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:40 PM timothy44 has responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3831 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 55 of 78 (368680)
12-09-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by timothy44
12-09-2006 2:37 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
What is the date of the sources you are quoting? Research in hot fields like sexual reproduction evolve rapidly and new explanations can arise in as little as 5 to 10 years. I mean, Lithoid-Man offered a very good explanation of sex, and I bet his research was performed after that book.

Also, statements like this:

quote:
You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is.

lead me to believe that you think the pure existence of sex is absurd, rather than the origination of sex being absurd. This sort of concern is outside the scop of this thread, but even more importantly, if sex is so absurd, why was it "designed"? The absurdity of sex is evidence against a designer if anything.

Now, I'm not familiar with this literature, but statements like

quote:
Evolution of many aspects of reproduction requires more theoretical studies, while the existing data are insufficient to choose among the currently competing hypotheses.

indicates that there are "currently competing hypotheses," or possible explanations out there. There is simply not enough data to choose a correct one yet. This does not say sexual reproduction is incompatible with evolution. It only says the mechanism of sexual reprduction is currently unknown, but compatible explanations exist. Which doesn't say anything new, this is why we still do science, because we don't know everything yet. And this is making your whole argument sound like an irreducible complexity argument.

quote:
Lastly, I would ask the evolutionists this question which a friend of mine posed to an evolutionist: The human female reproductive mechanism uses scent. The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step?

Sounds to me a lot like the way a flower attracts a pollinator. I think Chiroptera's explanation of a positive feedback loop fits the bill pretty well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 2:37 PM timothy44 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 56 of 78 (368681)
12-09-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by timothy44
12-09-2006 3:28 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
quote:
What is it that you don't understand about the CreationWiki quotes I cited in my post?

Given this is admitted:

Theoretically , gradual origin of amphimixis from apomixis, with each step favored by natural selection, is feasible.

I don't understand why this is a problem:

However, we still do not know how this process occurred nor what selection caused it.... Evolution of many aspects of reproduction requires more theoretical studies, while the existing data are insufficient to choose among the currently competing hypotheses.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:28 PM timothy44 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:59 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 78 (368686)
12-09-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 3:40 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
CreationWiki doesn't admit the validity of that quote. It merely states that TalkOrigins did not adequetly represent what the article actually stated as can be seen by the abstract.

Now please address the other CreationWiki material I cited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 3:40 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 4:07 PM timothy44 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 58 of 78 (368688)
12-09-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by timothy44
12-09-2006 3:59 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
quote:
CreationWiki doesn't admit the validity of that quote.

What? It is almost the entirety of the passage that you quoted. You see? This is the problem. It's not clear what you are trying to say here.

Write a passage in your own words what the problem is. If you cannot explain, in your own words, the problem you see with the evolutionary explanation, then I will assume that you do not understand your own sources and that you are merely spamming the board with cut'n'paste quotes you do not comprehend.

I will also warn you that the moderators of this board are going to make the same assumption.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 3:59 PM timothy44 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:25 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 60 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:26 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 78 (368692)
12-09-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Chiroptera,

I can see you really don't want to address the CreationWiki material. No need to carry on our "dialogue".

Edited by timothy44, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 4:07 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 4:37 PM timothy44 has not yet responded
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2006 8:41 PM timothy44 has not yet responded

  
timothy44
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 78 (368693)
12-09-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
double post

Edited by timothy44, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 4:07 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019