Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

Okay, I'm going to follow along with you who believe in evolution. We start as single cell organisms. How cute. We can self replicate. Oh joy. Now, moving along, someone mutates into a multi cell organism. He becomes the social loner. But then he starts self replicating. Then we got a second species on our hands. It turns out that multi celled organisms mutate again, becoming slightly more complex. That mutated outcast self replicates and makes more of itself. This process continues for a while, changing as the Earth's crust cools down...But here's where we run into a snag. When does the self replicating stop? If something mutates into something that can't self replicate, what happens? Something turns into a guy and is ready to start the mating process... but he has no mate. He's a mutation, a rare mutation that happens every so often.Evolution tells us that not only did something evolve into a guy, but at the SAME time and SAME place, a thing of the SAME species evolved into an organism that perfectly matched as an opposite of the male, aka a female.How can that happen? Seriously. If, by some statistically absurd chance, that happened, wouldn't natural selection crush that eventually? Self replication, a process seen as a basic process found in the 'beginning', should increase chances of survival. And with its increase chance of survival, how come no animal can do that today? I consider it a genetically superior trait, something that should still be around today in things besides bacteria.I think there actually might be a certain animal that can do that, actually. If you find it, check for something. God says that each animal was created with the ability to reproduce. Check to see if self replication is necessary. If it is a type of species that lives alone for its own survival.As you can tell, I am Pro-Creation in view, and I would appreciate it if you would post your view (for creation/evolution) before you reply.Edited by Admin, : Modify title.Edited by Lyston, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hey Lyston, nice to see you. I know, right. Evolution is absolute crap. It's amazing that biologists never realized how ridiculous it is for what you described. They must be a bunch of dumb asses.Mind coming over to this thread and help us compile our list of "kinds" on the ark? Right now, we're still doing mammals. My post 25 in that thread contains the list that we have so far. You could help us greatly by helping me modify that list to resemble more of what Noah had on his ark.Again, welcome to our little corner of the internet. It's nice to have such a smart person here. I'm sure the field of biology is surely about to crumble because of this new information you just presented us. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

That is not what evolution tells us.It was much more gradual than that.Take a look at the wiki page on the evolution of sex and come back with any questions.You find this at the bottom:

quote:

---

Origin of sexual reproduction

​

The most primitive organisms known to undergo meiosis and to reproduce sexually are protists (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria.

​

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]

​

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[23]

​

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[23]

​

A theory states that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids. [25]

​

A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26]

---

You're studd...studd...studd...studdering, Taz. Hey,Lyston.Look up sexual evolution. It is explained quite well.The problem you seem to be having is the usual creationist thinking that these major leaps are made all at once in one replication. They are not.Look at snails as a living transitional. Both male and female in the one organism. Pay particular attention to Helix aspersa. With understanding of the mechanisms involved in evolution and with a respect for the time spans involved you should have no problem answering your own question.Note I did not say you would have to believe, but at least you would know the answer from an evolutionary perspective.This male/female thing is an old creationist argument, btw, that has been torn to shreds decades ago. Its called a PRATT (problems refuted a thousand times). If you really want to do battle with evolution I suggest you research the knowledge-base prior to forming an argument. Know thine enemy, as it were.Welcome to EvC.

Not to me he doesn't. Now there are some people who tell me that this is what God says, but people are fallible so I don't know how much I should trust what they say.These same people also want to convince me that they have a book that was written by God, but, well, this seems a bit far fetched, so now I really have doubts about their trustworthiness.Unless God actually walks up to us, presents some ID so we know who he is, and explains to us to our faces what's what, then, by definition, he really isn't saying anything at all, and I think we should focus our attention on what the actual observable evidence indicates.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

I am most definitely an evolutionist, to start out. Correction: life starts with single-celled organisms. More accurately, pre-cellular organisms. Honestly, it depends on what you identify as "life." Viruses, for example, are not cellular, and likely more closely resemble the first life on the planet.The phrase "we start..." casues confusion. You and I "start" as a fetus in our mothers' wombs. Many take such phrases and believe that evolution means we somehow "morph" from one form to another inside our own lifetimes, which is compeltely false (and its unfortunate that TV and movies tend to perpetuate this little brainbug). Specifically, we self-replicate imperfectly. As did the first forms of life. It's these imperfections in the copying process that allow mutation and evolution to occur - otherwise all life would simply be cloned duplicates of the first life form. ...kind of. The move from single-celled to multi-cellular life is very interesting. The first examples were less true multi-cellular organisms and more single-cellular organisms living in colonies. Think algea - technically algea is a single-celled life form, but it congregates in large colonies. Some jellyfish are also simply colonies of single-celled organisms.So it's not a sudden "wow, you have several cells instead of one" change in a single generation. It's a gradual shift in certain populations toward cellular colonies, wich eventually gave rise to what we now call multi-cellular life. The Earth's crust was already cooled down by the time life formed. Magma is not very hospitable, even for extremophiles. But you are correct in that, over a few million years, a single-celled life form can give rise to a multitude of individual species, some of which could be multi-cellular. It doesn't stop - we're still doing it today, having babies. You seem to be under the impression that you, as an individual, were once a single-celled life form a few million years ago. That's not true - that's exactly the same as saying that you were your father 20 years ago, and your grandfather 30 years before that.All life continues to self-replicate. Some individuals may not be able to reproduce, true - take the example of a person who is born sterile. Does an individual with a mutation that prevents reproduction have any effect whatsoever on the species as a whole? Not really. Remember, traits can only be passed down through reproduction, so a mutation that prevents reproduction dies along with the individual and does not progress. No, it doesn't. This is a common misconception, but that's not what it says.Evolution is not an individual process. It's a process that affects populations. The frequency of expressed genetic trats does not change within an individual over a lifetime. The frequency changes over entire populations.Let's take giraffes for an exotic example. They didn't start with long necks - their evolutionary ancestors were much different. Lets start with this population of giraffe ancestors, and imagine that one giraffe has a mutation that gives him a slightly (we're talking a centimeter, not a meter) longer neck than the average. He's able to reach just a bit more food than the average individual, so he's well-nourished, and survives to mate.Now, he does not need his mate to posess the exact same mutation. Quite the contrary - he just needs a mate of the same species, and that's not a problem at all. Some of his offspring will posess the same mutation passed down from him, and will also have new mutations of their own (you have up to a few hundred mutations yourself, for example). So, several of the next generation posess longer necks, and are better-nourished than the average individuals, so they survive to mate. In bad years where food is scarce, they'll survive becasue they can reach more of the little food there is, and many of their peers with shorter necks will die - increasing the frequency of the longer-neck mutation (this is what we call natural selection. Note that it's not really "survival of the fittest," but rather more "survival of the fit enough").Over a very, very long time and many, many generations, the longer-necked individuals have become dominant - they are now the majority of the population, rather than just a few individuals. The frequency of genetic traits has changed, by subtle mutations guided by natural selection. Over an even longer timescale, tens of thousands of years or more, we can see the cumulative effects of mutations - the population now has necks that are much longer than their ancestors, becasue each successful mutation builds on all of the previous ones. The population now may have even changed enough so that it could be considered a different species from their ancestors - but at no point was any generation unable to interbreed with the generation immediately preceeding or following. In fact, the differences over individual generations are so tiny that you won't notice much, any more than you notice that some humans are taller than others. The problem is that "self-replication" doesn't mean "cell division." Well, it includes cell division, but that's not all. Self-replication also includes, sexual reproduction, budding, etc. Survival of a population increases with diversity. Getting stuck too far in a specific niche means that, if your niche is destroyed by a natural disaster, you won't be able to adapt. I'm not really certain what you're getting at here. All living things reproduce in some way - it's even part of the definition of "life." Is this the reason for your belief in Creationism? Becasue really, it's just a series of misunderstandings about what the Theory of Evolution actually states. They're common misconceptions, and they spawn from poor biology classes and are furthered by TV and movies (for the love of all that is good in this world, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have nothing to do with mutation in a scientific context).We can help you understand what the Theory actually states here, if you care to stick around and ask some questions, and you can make your decision (or even argue against us) from there.

There's nothing statistically unlikely about any aspect of evolution in a universe of this size and nature, and it could well be happening on many other planets. As for absurd, evolutionary biology doesn't suggest things like people suddenly becoming pillars of salt, walking on water, or having conversations with snakes.Neither does it ask us to believe in direct contradictions, like an "omniscient" being who expresses surprise in events that take place in his own creation.I'd avoid the word "absurd" if I were you, because you risk having your superstitions ridiculed around here if you use words like that.Here's an easy to read article which gives you an idea of two popular hypotheses that explain some of the advantages of sexual reproduction, and should answer your question about natural selection "crushing it".Evolution: Sex: The Advantage of SexWelcome to EvC.{ABE} You ask us to say which side of the debate we're on. I'm on the side with all the evidence.Edited by bluegenes, : answer to o.p. request

Alright, I'm just going to take this as it comes. I'm not saying that there is leaps from one thing to another. I've thought about this, so don't think that I am just rushing to conclusions here.What I thought about is this... Obviously, in the Evolutionist perspective, things were a form of Hermaphrodite - something with the ability to self reproduce. I want to know how things went from splitting down the middle went into the possession of reproductive organs. My main focus here is the creation of genders, not the sex cycle. And, please believe that I'm not just knocking your suggestion away, but I fail to realize how snail anatomy is relevant. I can see a vague link on how they don't have specific genders, but they still qualify as an actual Hermaphrodite in gender - something that contains both reproductive organs. To me, this is a way to known my 'enemy' as you say. I'm not here to battle, or to try to persuade people, or even to teach. As I said, I'm here for answers on my own. I must say, you are getting somewhere with the snail thing. I cannot answer my own question, however, so a follow up would be much appreciated. (I did look at the wikipedia thing on sex cycle, and it wasn't much help.)

No. Oh, look, it's the Argument from Undesign!Well, you've got us there. The only possible solution is that we are the product of fiat creation by an omniscient God who really really screwed up. Next time you're praying, remember to tick him off for creating us male and female, instead of blessing us with his wonderous gift of asexual reproduction.Whereas obviously evolution would have made us whatever you happen to think is "superior", because it's perfect and infallible and can read your mind. I'm not following you here. Evolution.P.S: the phrase you want is not "self replication" but "asexual reproduction".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Genesis 1:25: God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good. The first five books, known as Pentateuch, were written by Moses, the only man said to have had a face-to-face relationship with God. I have no knowledge of reading or hearing about "God Himself writing the Bible." But even then Moses has not seen the actual face of the Lord Almighty (in case someone wants to shout that God says that anyone who sees His face will die).You also say you only want to see "actual observable evidence" well, thing like the Big Bang or Evolution are not observable. Sure, as you can all agree, Evolution has many things that point to it being the origins of all life, but so does the Bible. I think the one most overlooked fact is that while God uses miraculous signs to display His power, he doesn't leave the world in a state of magical operation. If you look hard enough, you will surely find that everything has a way of working, from gravity to the cognitions of the human mind.

Have a look at the sex-lifes of ciliates such as Paramecium. Is that sexual reproduction? Are they hermaphrodites? Do they have sexes? Note that they are single-celled.Now consider the F plasmid in E. Coli ...

However, the evidence for them is. Er, yes. That's the pro-science Christian view. You'll find a lot of people round here telling you that. And they would add that evolution is one of the things that works.

Wow, that's a long reply. I learned some things from that, most was review, you answered some of the lessor questions quite well, but overall, you missed the main point. I'm interested in the creation of genders. I know a lot (not everything, but a lot) about mutations. I do know that if you sprinkle radiation on a turtle its not going to turn 4 feet tall, learn martial arts and start fighting crime. -.-Your example of the giraffe is good, well written, and entirely irrelevant. I'm asking about the mutation into genders. The elongation of the neck is not a mutation, its a survival trait that was passed down from generation to generation, increasing as the need increased. It could have started as a mutation, but if you are saying its a mutation thing, wouldn't it keep having to mutate with each passing generation? That's not how I was taught mutation works. In my opinion for giraffe necks, I think of an example my teacher gave while giving a bones lesson. He said, if he attached a weight on your arm at a high pressure, your bone would accommodate to the weight in time and make changes necessary. The bone would reform in a way that dipped down as the body adapts to the change (this would occur in time, of course). And then, if you reproduced with this bone change, it would be passed down to your offspring. That's how I see giraffe neck elongation. The constant extension of their necks had their body make the necessary changes, and of course natural selection tooks its place in there as the giraffes who couldn't reach died out or, as you said with "survival with the fit enough", were pushed into the background as the more fit giraffes took their place (maybe even inbred and the long necks took over). I honestly can't say I know how giraffe evolution works, but that is my current understanding to it.But all that is irrelevant! That talks about survival traits, I'm asking about genders. Now if giraffes suddenly made a significant change where they grew a second head, that would be more relevant.Now That I think about it, a second head would be an appropriate example of my views on genders. One is all you need, but why would there be a creation of a second one through time? And then, for the mutated animals that DO grow a second head, why isn't that passed down and take over? I can see dozens of genetically superiorities with such a thing as two heads. It would double fighting chance (if its a fanged type animal) and double food intake, giving more time to whatever.You asked if that was my only reason for believing in Creation. Well, my answer is NO. I have many, many other reasons, but I really wanted to see the response this topic gets. As you said, I don't have all the facts of the Evolution theory, but in the same way I'm sure you don't have all the facts for the Creation theory. I'm not here to convince you that "Your wrong, I'm right!" I'm here to learn more about the Evolution view and take that in account when I think of the possibility of such a view. I am pro-creation, just as you are pro-evolution, but I simply want understanding. I would appriciate it if you came back and gave another shot in helping me understand.