Another evolutionary dilemma: sexual reproduction.

[bob b]

I researched this topic a few years ago and found that even such rabid evolutionists as Richard Dawkins admitted that the rise of sexual reproduction was a dilemma, primarily because mixing the two genomes could disrupt the accumulation of favorable mutations (half the genes are discarded in each offspring).

I was wondering if any progress had been made in the past few years to solve this dilemma?

 

[Real Sorceror]

I don't know if any advances have been made in that feild, but I can tell you that organisms don't always evolve in ways that make sense.

 

[DXPose]

I researched this topic a few years ago and found that even such rabid evolutionists as Richard Dawkins admitted that the rise of sexual reproduction was a dilemma, primarily because mixing the two genomes could disrupt the accumulation of favorable mutations (half the genes are discarded in each offspring).

I was wondering if any progress had been made in the past few years to solve this dilemma?

Here are some interesting pieces of information from Scientist, Walt Brown's book:

Sexual Reproduction

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense.

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

 

[bob b]

Here are some interesting pieces of information from Scientist, Walt Brown's book:

Sexual Reproduction

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense.

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

Thank you for the useful information.

Unfortunately anything that a creationist has to say is immediately rejected by an evolutionist. But in this case evolutionists agree that sexual reproduction is an abominal mystery. For example:

"THE BRILLIANT theoretical physicist Richard Feynman is rumoured to have said, `If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory.' I am tempted by an evolutionist's equivalent: `If you think you understand sex, you don't understand sex: The three modern Darwinians from
whom I believe we have the most to learn - John Maynard Smith, W D. Hamilton and George C. Williams - all devoted substantial parts of their long careers to wrestling with sex. Williams began his 1975 book Sex and Evolution with a challenge to himself: `This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory ... there is a kind of crisis at hand in evolutionary biology ..:' [Williams G.C., "Sex and Evolution," Princeton University Press:
Princeton, 1975, p.v] Maynard Smith and Hamilton said similar things. It is to resolve this crisis that all three Darwinian heroes, along with others of the rising generation, laboured. I shall not attempt an account of their efforts, and certainly I have no rival solution to offer myself." (Dawkins R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A
Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.424)

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You mean Walt Brown, mechanical engineer right? Calling him a scientist is a bit of a stretch. Except for a "rabid" creationist, I guess. Examining the various reproductive strategies of microorganisms gives quite a lot of information on the evolution of sexual reproduction. I would say that reproduction through spores is likely an intermediate stage- or at least was at one time. Consider the complex lifecycles of most plants, integrating both methods.
from Wikipedia:
[edit] Origin of sexual reproduction
The most primitive organisms known 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 genetic 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.[19]

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).[20] 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.[19]

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.[19]

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.[21]

 

[Real Sorceror]

Here are some interesting pieces of information from Scientist, Walt Brown's book:

Sexual Reproduction

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense.

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction. But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.

a. The origin of the male-female reproductive system probably evolved very early on, even before plants and animals split. Those "amazingly complex" bodies would have been pretty basic at that time.

b. Agian, not that difficult at the time. They wouldn't even have had emotions.

c. Not a problem, assuming a. is true.

d. See above.

e. Not really. There probably wasn't even an egg.

f. It only needed to occur once if all species share a common ancester.

 

[Skeptic]

I was wondering if any progress had been made in the past few years to solve this dilemma?

Any dilemmas remaining for evolutionary scientists are rationally preferable to the huge dilemma's posed by the God-poofed hypothesis, that claims life's complexities were designed and instantaneously created by God in roughly their current variety of forms. The methods of science at least give evolutionary scientists the means to eventually answer any remaining empirical questions. The rational thing to do is to give science as much time as it needs to make the difficult observations and do the kinds of difficult long-term research that is obviously required to answer many tough empirical questions. It's NOT rational to give up on science simply because many of its answers will not be available during one's life time.

By what means can the dilemmas posed by the God-poofed hypothesis be answered? The scientific method? ... The God-poofed hypothesis cannot be rationally considered as a viable explanation until there is at least an answer to how God did it, not to mention how we can know that God exists and did what its many proponents claim He did. Just saying "God did it" or "nothing but God could have done it" (argument from incredulity) is insufficient. Unless those questions are answered empirically, the God-poofed hypothesis will remain the implausible fairy tale that it currently is.

 

[bob b]

Any dilemmas remaining for evolutionary scientists are rationally preferable to the huge dilemma's posed by the God-poofed hypothesis, that claims life's complexities were designed and instantaneously created by God in roughly their current variety of forms. The methods of science at least give evolutionary scientists the means to eventually answer any remaining empirical questions. The rational thing to do is to give science as much time as it needs to make the difficult observations and do the kinds of difficult long-term research that is obviously required to answer many tough empirical questions. It's NOT rational to give up on science simply because many of its answers will not be available during one's life time.

By what means can the dilemmas posed by the God-poofed hypothesis be answered? The scientific method? ... The God-poofed hypothesis cannot be rationally considered as a viable explanation until there is at least an answer to how God did it, not to mention how we can know that God exists and did what its many proponents claim He did. Just saying "God did it" or "nothing but God could have done it" (argument from incredulity) is insufficient. Unless those questions are answered empirically, the God-poofed hypothesis will remain the implausible fairy tale that it currently is.

Unless you change your attitude you are doomed.

Pride leads to a fall.

 

[Skeptic]

Unless you change your attitude you are doomed.

:rotfl:
Doomed if I don't abandon reason and replace it with faith in fairy tales and superstitions?

I don't think so.

Pride leads to a fall.

Where have I exhibited pride? ... If anyone has exhibited pride it's those who think they have found THE absolute Truth and claim with 100% certainty that their God inexplicably and supernaturally poofed life's complexities into existence in roughly their current forms.

Rather than pride, I feel that I have expressed the humility of someone who freely admits that he has far more questions than answers.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Unless you change your attitude you are doomed.

Pride leads to a fall.

So you have finally abandoned all pretense at being intersted in science, and are now simply pushing your faith? :thumb:
At least it's honest and consistent.

 

[bob b]

So you have finally abandoned all pretense at being intersted in science, and are now simply pushing your faith? :thumb:
At least it's honest and consistent.

If evolutionary theories were not causing people to lose their faith in Jesus Christ, and the only place we hear of Him, the Bible, then I would have no need to strive against these theories.

But it is fairly obvious that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ then one must have an alternative creation story. Evolution, as inadequate as it is, is that alternative creation story that gives comfort to the atheist that he has nothing to worry about: i.e. there is no afterlife.

So "go for the gusto" as the ad says. You only go around once.

So you hope.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If evolutionary theories were not causing people to lose their faith in Jesus Christ, and the only place we hear of Him, the Bible, then I would have no need to strive against these theories.

But it is fairly obvious that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ then one must have an alternative creation story. Evolution, as inadequate as it is, is that alternative creation story that gives comfort to the atheist that he has nothing to worry about: i.e. there is no afterlife.

So "go for the gusto" as the ad says. You only go around once.

So you hope.

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that evolution and atheism are not equivelent before you stop making these stupid speeches that destroy whatever scientific credibility you once possessed? This isn't a religious issue.

 

[SUTG]

But it is fairly obvious that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ then one must have an alternative creation story.

Or one can be honest with one's self and admit they do not know everything.

Evolution, as inadequate as it is, is that alternative creation story that gives comfort to the atheist that he has nothing to worry about: i.e. there is no afterlife.

Worry about the afterlife? You've gotta be kidding me, bob. Who wouldn't want to live forever?

 

[bob b]

How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that evolution and atheism are not equivelent before you stop making these stupid speeches that destroy whatever scientific credibility you once possessed? This isn't a religious issue.

The evidence from polls shows that it is, since the vast majority of leading evolutionary biologists are atheists.

 

[bob b]

Worry about the afterlife? You've gotta be kidding me, bob. Who wouldn't want to live forever?

Anyone who was not going to end up in heaven.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Evolution, as inadequate as it is, is that alternative creation story that gives comfort to the atheist that he has nothing to worry about: i.e. there is no afterlife.

Evolution has nothing to do with my lack of belief in God/the afterlife. The complete and total lack of evidence (outside of personal testimony) for any supernatural entity does.

 

[bob b]

Evolution has nothing to do with my lack of belief in God/the afterlife. The complete and total lack of evidence (outside of personal testimony) for any supernatural entity does.

In my experience, the evidence came after I had submitted my will to Jesus Christ. But I suppose every person may be unique in this regard.

 

[noguru]

In my experience, the evidence came after I had submitted my will to Jesus Christ. But I suppose every person may be unique in this regard.

But I thought you claimed that your rejection of evolution was not the result of a predetermined theological committment?

 

[bob b]

But I thought you claimed that your rejection of evolution was not the result of a predetermined theological committment?

As others have mentioned here, it is possible to believe in both Jesus Christ and evolution, especially if one doesn't know too much or think skeptically about evolution. For me it was the discovery of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system that destroyed my previous confidence in the truth of evolution. This is why I quickly wrote the short paper on the subject which I posted on this forum. If I hadn't done this at the time, the details of what happened 24 years ago and later would be even fuzzier than they are today.

 

[noguru]

As others have mentioned here, it is possible to believe in both Jesus Christ and evolution, especially if one doesn't know too much or think skeptically about evolution. For me it was the discovery of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system that destroyed my previous confidence in the truth of evolution. This is why I quickly wrote the short paper on the subject which I posted on this forum. If I hadn't done this at the time, the details of what happened 24 years ago and later would be even fuzzier than they are today.

So did you believe in Jesus and accept evolution simultaneously for a period of time in your past? I don't think I ever read your paper. I have seen you try to explain these events in your past, but I think your explanation would be more cohesive if you had actually recorded these events accurately at the time.