Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 76 of 180 (458960)
03-03-2008 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
03-01-2008 8:05 PM


Dr Adequate... Wow that is actually a very good example for the conversation. The only change I would make is that the painting would have a caption under it saying that it was painted by Michelangelo. I think "crude, ugly, stupid, and grotesque" are bad terms, however.
In my opinion, the conversation would be more like arguing over an abstract painting that had the caption: "This is my most perfect painting yet" -Michelangelo.
Then Bill acknowledging it as perfect in Michelangelo's eyes, but not seeing it as such. Followed by Fred saying that chimps have made similar paintings. Fred suddenly realizes that it looked very similar to chimp paintings. He remembers that the museum is often accused of having fake paintings, but none of the claims had been proved true yet. Bill puts his faith in believing the caption, while Fred believes that chimps made it.
That seems more accurate in my mind.
As for the "why didn't God give people four arms, wings, gills, webbed feet, or even protective scales" I am saying I don't know. I do know, however, that there is never enough. If we had all those, I'm sure I would have a whole different list of things we need (six arms, two heads, enlarged muscles, denser bones). What I feel, and this is backed by no Biblical text, is that God gave us just an adequate amount of traits to "dominate the birds, fish, and animals". Like, what could be seen as excess? Too many toes? Too much hair? Finger nails? I can see uses in all of those, as I'm sure you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2008 8:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 77 of 180 (458961)
03-03-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by molbiogirl
03-02-2008 10:54 PM


Sexual reproduction: Process in which two cells, termed gametes, come together to form one fertilized cell that contains genetic information from both parental cells.
That would be human sexual reproduction. I can't say I know for sure, but I am sure that asexual reproductive organisms don't combine two cells, especially when they themselves are one cell.
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the difference.
Sure, I'll be good enough. Genders, defined by male, female, hermaphrodite, or none at all (can't think of the name), are something I'm interested in. Sexual reproduction, the process in which an organism or organisms create more of the said organism, is something I'm not interested in. They are related, such as depending on which gender something is tells of its role in sexual reproduction, but I am interested in the formations of genders. Maybe it could be seen better as I'm interested in the creation organs that make up a gender. How did something (that is either a hermaphrodite or something else) start to form the separate organs penis and vagina? How did it start becoming a male or female?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by molbiogirl, posted 03-02-2008 10:54 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2008 2:14 AM Lyston has replied
 Message 92 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 11:36 AM Lyston has replied
 Message 97 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 1:09 PM Lyston has replied

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


Message 78 of 180 (458962)
03-03-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
03-02-2008 11:00 PM


All of this is OT. This is not an evolution thread.
o.O This is not an evolution thread? It's supposed to be. I didn't get to pick where this got placed, but it should be about the Evolution of Genders.
As for being off topic, I don't think it really is. He/she said she is pro-evolution because of the evidence. I think that the year counting is also evidence. If I can't speak of that, then you can't speak of mutations, natural selection, or, as you might have mis-typed, evolution.
Jeebus and his almighty pals are irrelevant.
Who is Jeebus, and when did I bring his pals into my thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 03-02-2008 11:00 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 03-03-2008 11:41 AM Lyston has replied

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


Message 79 of 180 (458963)
03-03-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
03-02-2008 11:00 PM


All of this is OT. This is not an evolution thread.
o.0 This is not an evolution thread? It's supposed to be. I didn't get to pick where this got placed, but it should be about the Evolution of Genders.
As for being off topic, I don't think it really is. He/she said she is pro-evolution because of the evidence. I think that the year counting is also evidence. If I can't speak of that, then you can't speak of mutations, natural selection, or, as you might have mis-typed, evolution.
Jeebus and his almighty pals are irrelevant.
Who is Jeebus, and when did I bring his pals into my thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 03-02-2008 11:00 PM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 80 of 180 (458964)
03-03-2008 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
03-02-2008 11:25 PM


The way I understand theory is that a hypothesis that is repeatedly proven to be correct becomes a theory. I'm not saying "its just a theory" I'm saying it IS a theory. I know that it isn't some educated guess, like a hypothesis, its a proven educated guess. Please understand, however, that my views on Evolution is the same as yours on Creation. I acknowledge that its a possibility, but I do not believe it the origin of life as we know it, just as you (I think) acknowledge that Creation is a possibility, but you don't believe it is how life started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2008 11:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 03-03-2008 1:33 AM Lyston has replied

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


Message 81 of 180 (458966)
03-03-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
03-02-2008 11:35 PM


Wow, I really don't know what to say to that Taz. I know what a scientific theory is, unless, of course, I went to School of We Want You to Fail and Know Nothing (WWYFKNHS for short), something that I'm starting to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 03-02-2008 11:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Taz, posted 03-03-2008 1:35 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 82 of 180 (458967)
03-03-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Lyston
03-03-2008 1:29 AM


Lyston writes:
The way I understand theory is that a hypothesis that is repeatedly proven to be correct becomes a theory.
Do us a favor and look it up for once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 1:29 AM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 1:40 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 83 of 180 (458968)
03-03-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Lyston
03-03-2008 1:33 AM


Lyston writes:
I know what a scientific theory is, unless, of course, I went to School of We Want You to Fail and Know Nothing (WWYFKNHS for short), something that I'm starting to believe.
Yes, and what they teach in high school is everything there is to know about science. Come on, give us a break here and try to actually understand what "theory" is in the real world of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 1:33 AM Lyston has not replied

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


Message 84 of 180 (458970)
03-03-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taz
03-03-2008 1:33 AM


Do us a favor and look it up for once.
En.wikipedia says...
It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).
Which is pretty much what I said. A hypothesis that is repeatedly proven (IE backed by "experimental evidence"). If this is still wrong and I fail at knowledge, I give up on this whole theory.
Oh, and G'night for now. So tell me how much I fail when I get back (scale from 1-10, ten being epic fail).
Edited by Lyston, : Didn't finish and am getting tired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 03-03-2008 1:33 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-03-2008 7:18 AM Lyston has replied

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


Message 85 of 180 (458971)
03-03-2008 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Lyston
03-02-2008 11:20 PM


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.
That's not why we are in debate, or people would be equally vociferous in denouncing the atomic theory of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Lyston, posted 03-02-2008 11:20 PM Lyston has not replied

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


Message 86 of 180 (458973)
03-03-2008 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Lyston
03-03-2008 1:11 AM


OK. Imagine you have sexual reproduction, but no distinct sexes. Two organisms in the species mate by each contributing a haploid cell.
Now, there is a way to cheat on this process, which is to contribute haploid cells which don't have much cytoplasm. That way you can produce more haploid cells. They aren't so good, 'cos the fetilized zygote then starts with less cytoplasm, but there are more of them. A tendency to cheat by producing lots of small gametes instead of a few big ones can, therefore, be favored by natural selection. But only up to a point --- for two cheats will produce a fairly useless zygote. Hence, the more cheats there are in the population, the greater the advantage of not being a cheat.
You might wonder why the non-cheats don't just evolve a cheat avoidance mechanism. Well, until they do, cheats are successful. And if the trait of being a cheat is dominant (in the Mendellian sense) then non-cheats breeding with cheats ensures them a 50:50 mix of cheat and non-cheat offspring, which turns out to be a good idea. Hence, non-cheats ought to breed with cheats, and cheats with non-cheats, and anything that favors this choice of mates carries a selective advantage.
You will observe that this process does not require any coincidences such as you proposed in the OP: the first step towards the production of males would be anything which increases gamete production at the expense of gamete size.
This shows how two sexes could evolve: obviously stuff like this is not going to show up in the fossil record, so it would be hard to confirm that this is in fact what happened.
I might add that the evolution of something that looks rather like sex has been seen in simulations of evolution such as Tierra, which starts with an asexually reproducing computer program.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 1:11 AM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 180 (458981)
03-03-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by molbiogirl
03-02-2008 11:00 PM


molbiogirl writes:
This is not an evolution thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 03-02-2008 11:00 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 88 of 180 (458983)
03-03-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Lyston
03-03-2008 1:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 1:40 AM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Lyston, posted 03-03-2008 7:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 89 of 180 (458985)
03-03-2008 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
03-01-2008 9:39 AM


Sure...
quote:
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.
I made it clear that I was referring to one specific sect. Obviously the rest would have a problem with it, at least initially.
quote:
CTD is again drifting off-topic from the origin of sexual reproduction into the evolution of sexual organs, but no matter.
Ha! Off topic? Not in respect to the topic of the thread. Male and female have sexual organs. Do I perceive the need to lessen the burden and only address the very, very first baby step in that direction as the "origin of sexual reproduction"?
I've had my fill of slanders in this thread. It's clear I'm unwelcome.
quote:
Evolutionists never claim that evolution can overcome any odds.
Yes they do. And wishing won't unify the religion. That sect has posted plenty of their nonsense in this forum. I won't even bother with a search as it's a waste of time confirming something everyone already knows.
quote:
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.
The links and posts of this thread provide ample support of my assessment. I've seen one or two good posts that at least appear to be made in good faith and provide information. But they don't provide enough information to satisfactorily answer the questions.
Now it's time to reassess the value of time spent participating on this forum, where half of what I say is intentionally misportrayed and truth is unwelcome. (See msg #52, for just one lame example. I'll not waste more time responding.)
Lastly, Admin uses the term "devolve" in msg 53. Seems very anachronistic if "ALL change = evolution". Why waste time typing the "d"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 03-01-2008 9:39 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 03-03-2008 7:39 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2008 8:30 AM CTD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 90 of 180 (458990)
03-03-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by CTD
03-03-2008 7:23 AM


Re: Sure...
Hi CTD,
If you have off-topic issues you'd like to raise about other members or posts, the place to do that is Windsor castle. Because you're apparently not taking the warnings I issued in Message 53 and Message 54 seriously, I'm suspending you for 24 hours.
Please, no replies to this message, not even indirect references to it.
Edited by Admin, : Add one item.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by CTD, posted 03-03-2008 7:23 AM CTD 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