How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: Barcs
And now I feel dumb for having fallen for the trap of trying to explain in more detail some of the things I said concerning my issues with:

Fossils of single celled life has been discovered that dates 3.5 billion + years back. That backs up the claim that they have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years.

When it really shouldn't require further detailed explanation how your presented evidence has no relation to the timeframe in your claim and the claim regarding evolution.

It should be obvious to anyone here, regardless of their views regarding evolution. I can't imagine any serious paleontologist trying to promote some evolutionary storyline pointing to some fossil of some dinosaur and then claim that that fossil on its own backs up that that type of organism has "been evolving for at least" whatever age is assigned to that fossil. It's just ridiculously illogical to reason like that. At least they try to use multiple fossils to show a progression from start to finish (at least where the picture in the storyline starts and finishes, and they have at least a few more details regarding names for different types of organisms, for example from Pakecitus through Ambulocetus through Dorudon to Whales, even though they like to play around and put them all on sidelines so one can no longer evaluate the "through" version of that storyline by more detailed comparisons and considering some of the major differences in these animals that evolutionary processes will somehow have to account for without killing the whole lines of generations of organisms, drawn but not depicted as singular species, to complete their 'trees' or "lineages"; where we sort of have to imagine all the steps in between, except they don't start with step A and immediately go into some unspecified step B, without mentioning anything about what happened in between or being clear about step B; or well, come to think of it, in a way they do but not as excessive as you're doing it skipping past 3.5 billion years and not spelling out step B, only referring to step A, you don't even have an A to B transition in your claim, it's just a vague: 'they have been evolving').

You and other fans know the evolutionary storyline goes: organism A evolved into organism B which evolved into organism C, etc. and then eventually you get humans (put them on sidelines in the "lineages" and "trees" all you want, the original storylines always pop up every now and then and even putting them on sidelines doesn't negate the fact that the lines representing all these organisms and this pattern are still drawn in the pictures of these "lineages" and "trees"). There's no need to oversimplify this even more. At this point, it becomes willfull or feigned ignorance that you made a boo-boo.

Perhaps you meant something else, that it's evidence that they existed 3.5 billion years ago. Rather than evolved for 3.5 billion years.

a reply to: whereislogic

www.inverse.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

And now a logical answer to the original post:


Why Two Sexes Are Better Than One

".........But in real life, organisms are much more likely to bump into a neighbor than someone from the other side of the tracks. The researchers created a model that took this into consideration and populated it with the hypothetical ancestors of all animals, plants, and fungi: single-celled creatures that reproduce by cloning most of the time, but regularly engage in sex, making either sperm, eggs, or wildcard sex cells that can mate with sperm, egg, or other wildcards. They ran the model 2420 times on 10 PCs simultaneously, taking a total of about 10,000 hours of computation. "It was very demanding," says Czárán".

"The outcome was worth it: The model showed that sperm and egg sex cells normally outbred wildcard sex cells, the pair reports online 21 September in BMC Evolutionary Biology. The researchers say the reason is that the latter would more often mate with their relatives, because during the cloning phase, the neighborhood would be flooded by their wildcard offspring and suffer lower fitness due to inbreeding".

"Evolutionary biologist Joel Parker of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, is impressed with the new paper, which he calls "brilliant.""

See whole article here:
www.sciencemag.org...




"“That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die”

"The Nameless City" by H.P. Lovecraft

a reply to: AlienView

So this thread could have ended 10 pages ago.

a reply to: whereislogic

That's the SHORT reply? I guess sticking to the point is difficult.

a reply to: whereislogic

You and other fans know the evolutionary storyline goes: organism A evolved into organism B which evolved into organism C, etc. and then eventually you get humans (put them on sidelines in the "lineages" and "trees" all you want, the original storylines always pop up every now and then and even putting them on sidelines doesn't negate the fact that the lines representing all these organisms and this pattern are still drawn in the pictures of these "lineages" and "trees"). There's no need to oversimplify this even more. At this point, it becomes willfull or feigned ignorance that you made a boo-boo.

Perhaps you meant something else, that it's evidence that they existed 3.5 billion years ago. Rather than evolved for 3.5 billion years.

that is not how it works. organism A produces a mutated version of organism A (call it AB) which then breeds with other A's to continue producing a subvariant of A with that mutation, while more of A continues to be produced and possibly breed with AB to produce species ABA while both A and AB continue to expand, consume, reproduce, etc. to put it simply, evolution does not mean the parent species ceases to exist unless the environment changes and they are unable to adapt. it just means a slightly different species now lives next door and strongly resembles the original in most respects.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

So this thread could have ended 10 pages ago.

And Evolution could have ended before it began but apparently keeps on going........WHY

WHY - Why does a biological life form exist at all? - If the Universe is nothing but a group of chemical and physical
interactions with no raison d'etre biological life is an anomaly and all Evolution is part of this anomaly

Evolution is as weak as Creationism in explaining its existent state - And though we may not lke to admit it
The Creationist mantra that god created iis just as good an answer - Of courese no one really has any
idea what that means either.

So the post goes on and in one form or other will go on indefinitely until...........


For now, as Carl Sagan once said:


“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”
― Carl Sagan

a reply to: AlienView

Looks to me like you already figured out what you think, you just want us to agree. But I'm still very perplexed about why gender means intelligent design.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

Looks to me like you already figured out what you think, you just want us to agree. But I'm still very perplexed about why gender means intelligent design.

Of course if I had the answer why would I start the thread?

I don't believe that Creationist know what intelligent design means either when they say therefore an intelligent designer
- I don't see it that way.

On the other hand I have yet to see a truly comprehnsive explanation as to why Evolution is occurring either.

If you want to use the words intelligent design [as I use them - not in a religious sense]
- Then Evolution becomes logical - to me science is intelligent design, not religion which is faith.

Intelligence and Design have nothing to do with faith or religion - They are the properties science finds
in the existent state of the Universe - And I can not give you a provable reason for either the Universe
or Evolution to exist - For now we must just accept existence as existence and use science to discover
why - But philosophical and metaphysical interpretations should not summarily be discarded - They led us to
science in the first place and may show possibilities that current science has yet fo see.


“Science…means unresting endeavor and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but the intellect can never fully grasp.”
― Max Planck

originally posted by: AlienView
And Evolution could have ended before it began but apparently keeps on going........WHY

WHY - Why does a biological life form exist at all? - If the Universe is nothing but a group of chemical and physical
interactions with no raison d'etre biological life is an anomaly and all Evolution is part of this anomaly

Because the genetic code does not perfectly copy itself. It's not rocket science, dude. Every replication contains some errors which become mutations. It's not something that begins or ends, it's just a fact that the code doesn't perfectly copy. There is nothing anomalous about it. What would be truly anomalous would be if it perfectly copied every time because that would be unfathomable.

Evolution is as weak as Creationism in explaining its existent state

No, that's not true, the mechanisms are fully known for evolution and why it exists.

originally posted by: Barcs
the mechanisms are fully known for evolution

Can you post the fully known empirical evidence for the evolution of the titin protein? It is over 100,000 base pairs long in sequence. I wonder how silly that protein must have looked during all those intermediate mutations. How would it have survived in the genome being so useless for so long? 10s of thousands of mutations later you finally get a functional protein... I rarely call things impossible, but such a sequence of progression could not occur through random mutations.

Not to mention the difficulty in arranging this newly created mutation protein into a logical interdependent state with the other necessary muscle proteins. How exactly this miraculous newly formed protein would be able to communicate with Cell differentiation to induce its proper orientation is also still a great mystery in science. Did I mention that titin is useless without actin and myosin? and vice versa? And all three are useless unless there is some sort of signal to organize them correctly:



So the mechanism of how this process developed is actually totally unknown, and logically a dilemma for step-by-step additions as theorized by evolution due to the interdependence of all the individual parts of the tissue.

a reply to: cooperton

Still confusing evolution with abiogenesis and the development of proteins I see. Maybe one day you won't respond to a post with a complete red herring or straw man.

The person I responded to was stating that evolution was just as weak as creationism in explaining why it happens. It was completely wrong because we understand the mechanisms. Genetic mutations and natural selection are not in question, they are fully known and that doesn't change because you don't grasp how a protein can form. There are NO mechanisms for creationism / ID.

originally posted by: Barcs
Still confusing evolution with abiogenesis and the development of proteins I see.

It was completely wrong because we understand the mechanisms.

The creation of muscle tissue is an issue with evolution, not abiogenesis. You're just trying to avoid the question because there is no answer. Your theory is faith-based, not science-based.

In the new world order of religious Atheism both intelligence and design does not exist

These numb skulls [my opinion] can not accept the existence of either intelligence or design
- To them all that exist must be distillable fo a formula that can be written down
- The reality that exists for them is pure fantasy - much more of a fantasy than the wildest imaginations of Creationist.

Fanatical Atheism threatens the future more so than the fanatical theists who have also contributed to the numb skull
phenomenon that has driven much of Human history - I want to believe - believe that Human intelligence can
evolve past the state of dead, and unimaginative thinking - The Universe, no matter what they think, is not static
- It is dynamic process in play - Only a self delusional fool would think he could reduce it to a simple formula.

Same with Evolution - The day they can define it in an absolute sense is the day it ends.

I bet on intelligence over stupidity - The Human mind will continue to evolve, regardless of source or goals.






“The highest court is in the end one’s own conscience and conviction—that goes for you and for Einstein and every other physicist—and before any science there is first of all belief.”
― Max Planck, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Still confusing evolution with abiogenesis and the development of proteins I see.

It was completely wrong because we understand the mechanisms.

The creation of muscle tissue is an issue with evolution, not abiogenesis. You're just trying to avoid the question because there is no answer. Your theory is faith-based, not science-based.

It's not an issue in the slightest. You just don't like the explanation.

a reply to: AlienView

The new world order of religious atheism? Who are these people and where do they exist??? Science isn't a world order, it's a method of testing things that has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Sorry you can't call something a new world order when over half of scientists believe in a god / higher power and the atheist population in the US is only around 10%. Where are these tens of thousands of scammers coming from?

These numb skulls [my opinion] can not accept the existence of either intelligence or design
- To them all that exist must be distillable fo a formula that can be written down
- The reality that exists for them is pure fantasy - much more of a fantasy than the wildest imaginations of Creationist.

This doesn't make sense. I accept the existence of human intelligence and design. We KNOW that exists. What we don't know is that an intelligent creative mind exists independent of life on earth. You really think the scientific theory of evolution is fantasy, while the idea of a magical god being that just happens to be there with no explanation or evidence to support it is NOT fantasy? Or ancient aliens with no origin that created life is not a fantasy?

This is a common creationist misconception, that evolution requires more faith than an intelligent designer. It's completely bogus. God is 100% faith. ID is 100% faith. Evolution is SCIENCE.

Fanatical Atheism threatens the future more so than the fanatical theists who have also contributed to the numb skull phenomenon that has driven much of Human history

Huh? When was the last time you heard of a bunch of atheists suicide bombing innocent people in the name of no god? Fanatical atheism does not exist for the most part and even the most staunch atheists aren't going around murdering people who don't agree with them or oppressing them, or infringing on their humans rights, while religious fanatics are known for things that do nothing but harm others. Don't get me wrong, bad atheists exist, just like bad theists, but pretending like it's a bigger problem than religious fanaticism is ridiculous. It's clearly not. Atheists don't even get equal rights in some US states here. Asking for equal treatment and rights is not fanaticism. They aren't trying to force convert people with the threat of harm. That hasn't happened since soviet Russia. In today's word, religious extremism is a far bigger issue.

Same with Evolution - The day they can define it in an absolute sense is the day it ends.

Explain. What do you mean by "absolute sense?" Nothing in science is absolute, we are still learning much about such things. Are you saying that genetic mutations and natural selection have not been proved yet?

I bet on intelligence over stupidity

Same here, and denial of science is stupidity.

I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

originally posted by: Barcs

It's not an issue in the slightest. You just don't like the explanation.

Great cop-out. If you knew the secret to the organizing factor of myosin-actin-titin and also the evolutionary mechanism of how they managed to synchronize structure, orientation and function you would be the greatest biologist of the 21st century.

The correct answer is "we have no idea how it happened, our beliefs are therefore based on faith"

originally posted by: vasaga
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Evolution is just as valid as Mac writing new code by employing a room full of monkeys smacking a keyboard until one of them creates the new iOS update

originally posted by: vasaga
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Nice straw man. Well done!

originally posted by: cooperton
The correct answer is "we have no idea how it happened, our beliefs are therefore based on faith"

Wrong. The correct answer is we have a CRAPLOAD of knowledge and research related to evolution, but we don't know every detail of everything. That's not a problem because the evidence is consistence and abundant. Your argument of "We don't know this one thing, therefor we don't know anything and the whole theory is faith based," is a completely fallacious.