Evolutionists: How did sex evolve?

[Jose Fly]

Please explain the science behind your ability to read minds.

It doesn't really take a mind reader to understand that you're just playing a game of "stump the evolutionist".

So let's say the answer to your question is "We don't know". Therefore.......?

I know enough and do not need to prove myself to you.

No you don't. Your posts consistently show you know very little about the science of evolutionary biology, and your manner of participation in these threads indicate that your ignorance is deliberate.

Evolutionist make all kinds of wild claims about knowledge they do not have.

Such as?

No, but since you reject any evidence of design... we can see where this will lead.

Where did I say that I reject any evidence of design? If you have something to bring to the table regarding how you determine things to have been "designed", then by all means, let's see it.

Or is this just a one-way street for you, where you demand science advocates fully explain everything, while you are under no obligation to explain anything?

 

[Right Divider]

It doesn't really take a mind reader to understand that you're just playing a game of "stump the evolutionist".

And what, exactly, is wrong with that? Is it because it's too easy?

So let's say the answer to your question is "We don't know". Therefore.......?

Richard Dawkins and many others give answers to this question. They are completely unsatisfactory, but they make guesses. Pretty much like all of those conjectures about the distance past that make up the real problem with evolution.

You don't. Your posts consistently show you know very little about the science of evolutionary biology, and your manner of participation in these threads indicate that your ignorance is deliberate.

You just love being wrong, don't you?

Such as?

That chemicals just magically came to live by natural forces.

Where did I say that I reject any evidence of design? If you have something to bring to the table regarding how you determine things to have been "designed", then by all means, let's see it.

Start another thread on the subject.

Or is this just a one-way street for you, where you demand science advocates fully explain everything, while you are under no obligation to explain anything?

Your entire first post could have just been "we don't know".

"Science advocates" LOL.... you and yours just love to conflate evolution with science.

 

[Jose Fly]

And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

Thanks for your honesty.

It shows that like [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], your only interest in any answers you get is to dismiss them out of hand, which means writing up and posting anything for either of you is a waste of time.

Richard Dawkins and many others give answers to this question. They are completely unsatisfactory, but they make guesses.

What exactly did Dawkins say about the origin of sexual reproduction?

That chemicals just magically came to live by natural forces.

Do you have a specific example of something from science regarding abiogenesis that you object to? Or is this just that you object to them investigating anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs?

Start another thread on the subject.

Another dodge, further indicating that you have no idea how to determine things to have been "designed".

Your entire first post could have just been "we don't know".

I specifically said that in my very first post on this thread. Try and keep up.

"Science advocates" LOL.... you and yours just love to conflate evolution with science.

I suppose so, since "me and mine" are the world's scientific community for the last 150+ years. But then, what value is that when compared to "Right Divider at Theologyonline"? :chuckle:

 

[Jonahdog]

Right Divider: Go to your local university. Find a biology professor. Ask him/her.

Got the stones to do that?

 

[jaybird]

it started the first time man saw a women naked.

 

[Right Divider]

Right Divider: Go to your local university. Find a biology professor. Ask him/her.

Got the stones to do that?

:banana:

 

[The Barbarian]

The earliest examples of sex is as an optional way to share genes. Conjugation in prokaryocytes is not necessary for reproduction, but helps to spread favorable genes more quickly. It's the way that the nylon oligomer mutation spread so quickly, for example.

Many organisms have alternate ways of reproducing, with sex one of them and asexual reproduction as well. So why have sex?

The most important thing is that it allows more rapid spread of favorable genes in a population. On the other hand, sexual reproduction means that only half of your genes end up in each offspring. So the preferred mode will depend on how likely it is that the environment will change. Where change is relatively frequent, sexual reproduction will usually result in more of your genes surviving.

That's a pretty quick summary. If anyone would like details, I'd be pleased to talk about it.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This should be FAR more interesting than legs evolving....

Easy.

Asexual reproduction just clones an individual. That means that any pathogen that affects even only one of the individuals in an asexual population can wipe out the entire population --- because all of their immune systems are the exact same

Sexual reproduction involves a mixing of two different individuals' genes. That means that all the offspring are different (as well as different from parents), but with that diversity comes survivability. If a pathogen infects and kills one individual, his brothers and sisters might not be affected because their immune systems are all different.

It likely began the same as some bacteria and Protists do it today. Or with an exchange of info in bacteria (slightly different since no offspring are produced), also something we observe today

 

[chair]

"I don't know" is a legitimate answer to questions of this sort. Scientists don't know everything.
"I don't know" is a legitimate answer to other questions as well. For example- obscure Biblical passages. "I don't know" is a better answer in those cases than some twisted theory.

 

[beameup]

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes"
2 Timothy 2:23a

 

[Caino]

Sex evolved by the inherent mechanism, within evolutionary life, that was created on earth.

 

[Jonahdog]

:banana:

So I take it you lack the courage to ask a real expert in the real world, rather than anyone on the internet. Not surprised.

 

[Greg Jennings]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/mutant-crayfish-clones-europe.html?referer=

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a interesting new species that no longer bothers with sex:

Frank Lyko, a biologist at the German Cancer Research Center, studies the six-inch-long marbled crayfish. Finding specimens is easy: Dr. Lyko can buy the crayfish at pet stores in Germany, or he can head with colleagues to a nearby lake.

Wait till dark, switch on head lamps, and wander into the shallows. The marbled crayfish will emerge from hiding and begin swarming around your ankles.

“It’s extremely impressive,” said Dr. Lyko. “Three of us once caught 150 animals within one hour, just with our hands.”

Over the past five years, Dr. Lyko and his colleagues have sequenced the genomes of marbled crayfish. In a study published on Monday, the researchers demonstrate that the marble crayfish, while common, is one of the most remarkable species known to science.

Before about 25 years ago, the species simply did not exist. A single drastic mutation in a single crayfish produced the marbled crayfish in an instant.
...
“We may never have caught the genome of a species so soon after it became a species,” said Zen Faulkes, a biologist at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, who was not involved in the new study.

The marbled crayfish became popular among German aquarium hobbyists in the late 1990s. The earliest report of the creature comes from a hobbyist who told Dr. Lyko he bought what were described to him as “Texas crayfish” in 1995.

The hobbyist — whom Dr. Lyko declined to identify — was struck by the large size of the crayfish and its enormous batches of eggs. A single marbled crayfish can produce hundreds of eggs at a time.

Soon the hobbyist was giving away the crayfish to his friends. And not long afterward, so-called marmorkrebs were showing up in pet stores in Germany and beyond.

As marmorkrebs became more popular, owners grew increasingly puzzled. The crayfish seemed to be laying eggs without mating. The progeny were all female, and each one grew up ready to reproduce.

In 2003, scientists confirmed that the marbled crayfish were indeed making clones of themselves. They sequenced small bits of DNA from the animals, which bore a striking similarity to a group of crayfish species called Procambarus, native to North America and Central America.

For nearly two decades, marbled crayfish have been multiplying like Tribbles on the legendary “Star Trek” episode. “People would start out with a single animal, and a year later they would have a couple hundred,” said Dr. Lyko.
...

Many owners apparently drove to nearby lakes and dumped their marmorkrebs. And it turned out that the marbled crayfish didn’t need to be pampered to thrive. Marmorkrebs established growing populations in the wild, sometimes walking hundreds of yards to reach new lakes and streams. Feral populations started turning up in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Ukraine in Europe, and later in Japan and Madagascar.
...
It apparently evolved from a species known as the slough crayfish, Procambarus fallax, which lives only in the tributaries of the Satilla River in Florida and Georgia.

The scientists concluded that the new species got its start when two slough crayfish mated. One of them had a mutation in a sex cell — whether it was an egg or sperm, the scientists can’t tell.

Normal sex cells contain a single copy of each chromosome. But the mutant crayfish sex cell had two.

Somehow the two sex cells fused and produced a female crayfish embryo with three copies of each chromosome instead of the normal two. Somehow, too, the new crayfish didn’t suffer any deformities as a result of all that extra DNA.

It grew and thrived. But instead of reproducing sexually, the first marbled crayfish was able to induce her own eggs to start dividing into embryos. The offspring, all females, inherited identical copies of her three sets of chromosomes. They were clones.

Now that their chromosomes were mismatched with those of slough crayfish, they could no longer produce viable offspring. Male slough crayfish will readily mate with the marbled crayfish, but they never father any of the offspring.

There are a lot of clear advantages to being a clone. Marbled crayfish produce nothing but fertile offspring, allowing their populations to explode. “Asexuality is a fantastic short-term strategy,” said Dr. Tucker.

In the long term, however, there are benefits to sex. Sexually reproducing animals may be better at fighting off diseases, for example.

If a pathogen evolves a way to attack one clone, its strategy will succeed on every clone. Sexually reproducing species mix their genes together into new combinations, increasing their odds of developing a defense.

The marbled crayfish offers scientists a chance to watch this drama play out practically from the beginning. In its first couple decades, it’s doing extremely well. But sooner or later, the marbled crayfish’s fortunes may well turn.

“Maybe they just survive for 100,000 years,” Dr. Lyko speculated. “That would be a long time for me personally, but in evolution it would just be a blip on the radar.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/mutant-crayfish-clones-europe.html

Bigger crawfish, reproduces rapidly and is easy to catch.

Cajun translation:
Laissez les bons temps rouler!

 

[The Barbarian]

This should be FAR more interesting than legs evolving....

Stephen Gould once mentioned finding a journal article on gall wasps written by Alfred Kinsey, author of the "Kinsey Report", an investigation into human sexual behavior.

Someone had scribbled on the front of the paper, "Why don't you write about something more interesting, Al?"

 

[The Barbarian]

So ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions. It has the drawback for individuals, because it only means half of one's genes get reproduced.

So there's two opposing forces. Sometimes asexual works better; sometimes sexual works better.

 

[Right Divider]

So ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions.

That is HILARIOUS.... and I knew someone would get there.

So evolution is SO smart that is just knows what's best in the distant future regardless of the way that it "needs" to get there.

It has the drawback for individuals, because it only means half of one's genes get reproduced.

So there's two opposing forces. Sometimes asexual works better; sometimes sexual works better.

This does NOT explain the incredibly elaborate processes that it would take to GET THERE by small gradual changes based on mutations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions.

That is HILARIOUS....

Then apples falling out of trees must really break you up. You see, apples fall out of trees, because gravity pulls them to the ground.

So evolution is SO smart that is just knows what's best in the distant future regardless of the way that it "needs" to get there.

Nope. You're trying to insert intelligence into natural phenomena. Gravity isn't so smart that it moves apples down to the ground so that they can decay and spread seeds to make new trees. If you think about it for a minute, I'm sure you can figure this out.

This does NOT explain the incredibly elaborate processes that it would take to GET THERE by small gradual changes based on mutations.

So which of those very slight changes are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection?

Even most creationists now admit that natural selection tends to make a population more fit.

The fact remains:
Ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions. It has the drawback for individuals, because it only means half of one's genes get reproduced.

So there's two opposing forces. Sometimes asexual works better; sometimes sexual works better.

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian observes:
So ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions.

Once again, so evolution is that smart? And you can prove that evolution knew this, right?

We all know that sexual reproduction has many advantages... ONCE IT EXISTS.

How did it gradually get there?

Then apples falling out of trees must really break you up. You see, apples fall out of trees, because gravity pulls them to the ground.

An evolutionist must always make FALSE equivocations. It's a nice distraction from the FACTS.

Nope. You're trying to insert intelligence into natural phenomena. Gravity isn't so smart that it moves apples down to the ground so that they can decay and spread seeds to make new trees. If you think about it for a minute, I'm sure you can figure this out.

That is, once again, HILARIOUS.

So which of those very slight changes are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection?

Show us the way, Mr. KnowItAll.

Even most creationists now admit that natural selection tends to make a population more fit.

The old tautology hard at work again.

The fact remains:
Ultimately, sex evolved because it provides a faster way of evolving to fit new conditions. It has the drawback for individuals, because it only means half of one's genes get reproduced.

BECAUSE? LOL

So there's two opposing forces. Sometimes asexual works better; sometimes sexual works better.

Believing like you do has made you crazy.

 

[User Name]

This should be FAR more interesting than legs evolving....

=