the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

I wonder if there is much interest in the amazing variety of different methods of reproduction that evolved over the billions of years there has been life on earth.Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed but simply another example of "just barely good enough" that seems the hallmark of living organisms throughout history.For millions if not billions of years the only form of reproduction was either clonal splitting or cellular combination followed by division.The former had the serious problem that simple duplication provided no variations and so the organisms were subject to total population extermination when conditions changed.The latter provided the first introduction of variation where traits from one organism could get shared with a different organism.When we move to the various modern methods of reproduction what is found is that most systems are extremely inefficient and failure to reproduce is the norm rather than success. Most such systems rely on large scale attempts to compensate for the high rate of failure. The tactics is common in both plant and animal species and this time of year is a particular nuisance. Plants produce pollen that is then dispersed randomly and may happen to fertilize another plant of the same species. A similar example from the animal side of the family is common in fish where a female releases a vast amount of eggs into the water and males release vast quantities of sperm and again random dispersal may result in some of the eggs being fertilized.Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule. The vast majority of species have neither males or females but rather are without sex; many species are both male & female; many have more than two genders and there are even species that change sex as needed or with age.When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue.AbE: Biological Evolution PleaseEdited by jar, : suggest location

Thread copied here from the the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

That may not be true. Bacteria also have sex, but I am not sure when it was supposed to have evolved: Bacteria can swap DNA between very distantly related species, even between Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria.

I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from the haphazard nature of reproduction. If the objective was to be profligate and try lots of new things then one could say that the whole shebang was carefully orchestrated and the results are flawless.The best we can do, not being able to conclusively disprove the possibility of some designer, is to define the shape that he must take according to the evidence that we expose.So what we can conclude about the nature of any potential designer based on how reproduction works is that they don't care too much about who you might be shaking hands and sharing holes with.

We can also conclude that the designer really didn't know what would work and is not at all concerned about success rates or failure rates and is pretty much just learning on the job.

Hard to say what is working or not if we don't know what the goal is.

That's always a handy cop out, but I think it is reasonable to think the goal of reproduction is reproduction.

It is not a cop out but rather a logical restriction. You presume to know what the designer's objective might be.Reproduction is what it is. You can't say that there is no designer because reproduction doesn't look like you think it should. Furthermore, you will find it difficult to argue that the observed aggregate of reproductive methods is anything but successful.Finding out what doesn't work is very nearly as important as finding out what does work. Some things work for a while and then they don't. Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective.

Of course it is a royal cop out. I really don't care what the designers objective might be since there is no reason to even suppose some designer. What we can base conclusions on is the evidence itself. I don't find that hard to argue at all. I simply look at the evidence. Almost every species that ever existed went extinct. Almost all potential reproductive events fails. In a vast number of actual reproductive attempts that result in a new living creature the critter dies before it can reproduce. The certainly can be described as unsuccessful. And there you go presuming to know some designers objective. As long as the Designers Objective cop out card is played then anything is possible.Sorry but designers get graded on the results.As long as the results show that if there was a designer then only as long as ID stands for Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inept Designer or Inefficient Designer is ID even vaguely possible.

No.. Evolution is not an entity trying to find a path or what works. All that is required for an evolutionary direction, is for a group to survive and pass on their genes. The ones who do not reproduce are dead ends and populations that go extinct are the ultimate dead end. No objective, nothing to do with variety, not a stepping stone, just a dead end.

Yet I look from my window upon the splendor of it all. Still over population is a serious problem. Not every individual needs to reproduce for the species to continue. Only after you make a bunch of assumptions regarding what the objective is. Do you really think that you are up to the task of assessing whether or not some potential GOD of the universe has done a good job of it.

Absolutely. And I even find support for that throughout the Bible.And it takes no assumptions to conclude that a near 100% failure rate is reasonably described as a failure.

What does the Bible say about the arrangement of the periodic table? Any adjustments recommended there? Unless you imagine for a moment what the world would look like if every potential reproductive event met with success.

I agree with you about that but I am talking about the potential objectives of some hypothetical designer.What catches my interest is the question of what we can infer about the designer from the design should either one exist.

Nice attempt to move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject.Classic fail however. Again, no imagination is needed. We can simply look at the evidence. Again though, that is simply another attempt by you to find a handy cop out, move goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention, change the subject. We have the evidence and we can draw conclusions based on the evidence.If there was some designer she designed a system that could only succeed by being inept, inefficient, ignorant, ill thought out, and with all the characteristics of an unplanned system that is just barely good enough to get by.No designer need apply.