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

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Nothin

Is there actual research you can post for us?

Research into a thought exercise.
Hmmmm...
Am gonna have to think about that one.

a reply to: Nothin

I meant that article from Kazakhstan

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Nothin

I meant that article from Kazakhstan

The news article in question is from the UK, that is about a research project done in Kazakhstan.
Are you questioning the validity of the research from Kazakhstan?

If you want to challenge it: perhaps you could challenge the OP, who was the first to post it in this thread.
If you want to investigate it: there have been a couple of threads previously discussing it, here on ATS.

Sorry but the word 'actual' has been so bastardized: don't know what people mean when they use it anymore.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: rukia

"......Now, if you want a scientific reason, then there are males and females due to the need for the survival of the species. Otherwise, the species would die out if all of the members were unable to breed. Therefore, having the ability to reproduce guarantees the survival of the species".

And WHO of WHAT needs this species called Man to survive?

Humans make sure cattle survive so we can eat them - What primal force wants MAN to survive?

And most of all WHY

that is the scariest question of all. because the answer is, humans are not necessary in the slightest. there is no force primal or otherwise that depends on humans in any capacity. our species could go extinct tomorrow and the rest of the universe would not notice at all.

Interesting you should say this - 'and the rest of the univrse would not notice at all.'

How do you know this - How can you say the universe 'notices'?

Does 'it' possess some type of consciousness? - Maybe it does? - Maybe the theists are right?

The most famoous theoretical physicists of the 20th Century
Albert Einstein [Relativity], and Max Planck [quantum mechanics]
both did not believe in a god in the religious sense, and said so; But both in their philosophical writings implied
there is something of an order or intelligence beyond our comprehension - Why you sometimes see me arguing for
non-religious ID - Intelligent design without the necessity of a creator - And research shows there are a few
Atheists who think this way.

Lately I'm obsessed with what they call 'The Observer Effect' - And some recent experimental evidence shows
we are affecting reality as we observe it.

So I can't imagine what 'the rest of the universe' means without an observer
- Can you prove anythng exists without an observer to observe and define its existence?


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” ― - -Max Planck

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”
― Max Planck

a reply to: Nothin

I was asking for the methods and data behind their conclusions. How they gathered their findings. It would be cool if someone posted the process here and not just an article.

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: rukia

"......Now, if you want a scientific reason, then there are males and females due to the need for the survival of the species. Otherwise, the species would die out if all of the members were unable to breed. Therefore, having the ability to reproduce guarantees the survival of the species".

And WHO of WHAT needs this species called Man to survive?

Humans make sure cattle survive so we can eat them - What primal force wants MAN to survive?

And most of all WHY

that is the scariest question of all. because the answer is, humans are not necessary in the slightest. there is no force primal or otherwise that depends on humans in any capacity. our species could go extinct tomorrow and the rest of the universe would not notice at all.

Interesting you should say this - 'and the rest of the univrse would not notice at all.'

How do you know this - How can you say the universe 'notices'?

Does 'it' possess some type of consciousness? - Maybe it does? - Maybe the theists are right?

The most famoous theoretical physicists of the 20th Century
Albert Einstein [Relativity], and Max Planck [quantum mechanics]
both did not believe in a god in the religious sense, and said so; But both in their philosophical writings implied
there is something of an order or intelligence beyond our comprehension - Why you sometimes see me arguing for
non-religious ID - Intelligent design without the necessity of a creator - And research shows there are a few
Atheists who think this way.

Lately I'm obsessed with what they call 'The Observer Effect' - And some recent experimental evidence shows
we are affecting reality as we observe it.

So I can't imagine what 'the rest of the universe' means without an observer
- Can you prove anythng exists without an observer to observe and define its existence?


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” ― - -Max Planck

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”
― Max Planck

"We must assume" is a fallacy. Test everything. So how would you test a universe to see if it is conscious?

As for proving existence is independent of observation. Simple physics. A black hole is impossible to observe directly yet they exist. Your mind is impossible to directly observe yet we give you credit for having one. Should I go on?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Nothin

I was asking for the methods and data behind their conclusions. How they gathered their findings. It would be cool if someone posted the process here and not just an article.

Ok. That might be useful for folks who are into that kinda stuff.

Probably posted the thought-experiment in the wrong thread. Sorry.

originally posted by: AlienView
OK truth seekers I found a good answer at to why 'THEY' decided to go the experimental sex route......

Here it is:

"Advantages of sex and sexual reproduction:
The concept of sex includes two fundamental phenomena: the sexual process (fusion of genetic information of two individuals) and sexual differentiation (separation of this information into two parts). Depending on the presence or absence of these phenomena, the existing ways of reproduction can be divided into asexual, hermaphrodite and dioecious forms. The sexual process and sexual differentiation are different phenomena, and, in essence, are diametrically opposed. The first creates (increases) diversity of genotypes, and the second decreases it by half. Reproductive advantages of the asexual forms are in quantity of the progeny and the advantages of the hermaphrodite forms – in maximum diversity. Transition from the hermaphrodite to dioecious state leads to a loss of at least half of the diversity. So, the main question is to explain the advantages given by sexual differentiation, i.e. the benefits of two separate sexes compared to hermaphrodites rather than to explain benefits of sexual forms (hermaphrodite + dioecious) over asexual ones. It has already been understood that since sexual reproduction is not associated with any clear reproductive advantages, as compared with asexual, there should be some important advantages in evolution.[9]

Advantages due to genetic variation:
For the advantage due to genetic variation, there are three possible reasons this might happen. First, sexual reproduction can combine the effects of two beneficial mutations in the same individual (i.e. sex aids in the spread of advantageous traits). Also, the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after another in a single line of descendants.[10][unreliable source?] Second, sex acts to bring together currently deleterious mutations to create severely unfit individuals that are then eliminated from the population (i.e. sex aids in the removal of deleterious genes). However, in organisms containing only one set of chromosomes, deleterious mutations would be eliminated immediately, and therefore removal of harmful mutations is an unlikely benefit for sexual reproduction. Lastly, sex creates new gene combinations that may be more fit than previously existing ones, or may simply lead to reduced competition among relatives. For the advantage due to DNA repair, there is an immediate large benefit of removing DNA damage by recombinational DNA repair during meiosis, since this removal allows greater survival of progeny with undamaged DNA. The advantage of complementation to each sexual partner is avoidance of the bad effects of their deleterious recessive genes in progeny by the masking effect of normal dominant genes contributed by the other partner. The classes of hypotheses based on the creation of variation are further broken down below............."

See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Of course this still does not answer whether this type reproduction would occur in the natural course of Evolution - or whether
Evoulution does in fact have a 'natural course'

And if Evolution does not have a so called natural course - Why does it go where it goes?

Do you still want to believe that sex occurs as a perfectly natural result of Evolutionary process?

Some might think nothing happens naturally, as what does naturally really mean?

Again you can't see, but you can perceive an external mind at work.

And if nothing else we are part of a matrix we can not understand..........as of yet!

The quoted text does not mention aliens or any form of intelligent interference

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"We must assume" is a fallacy. Test everything. So how would you test a universe to see if it is conscious?

Quantum experiment demonstrates this consistently. We as the observers have a profound effect on the system. Particles 'know' when they are being analyzed. Photons collapse from a probabilistic waveform into a concrete particle when being measured/observed.

You could deny this empirical fact because you want to hold on to a material-reductionist perspective on the world, but this would make you a science denier.

a reply to: cooperton

Particles 'know' when they are being analyzed.

No they don't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

No they don't.

In Shan Yu's experiment they still needed a device to analyze the slit. It doesn't matter if a conscious human is watching, because camera's, detection devices, etc are all analytical devices. The lady in the video thinks she has outsmarted those who formulated the observer effect, yet the experiment by Shan Yu still required a measurement by a machine built by conscious humans. You guys will deny science whenever it inconveniences your material-reductionist views on reality.

a reply to: cooperton

In Shan Yu's experiment they still needed a device to analyze the slit.

Not really. The photon will behave like a wave when it encounters the slits whether or not anyone knows it.

Tree in the woods sort of thing, don't you know.

The lady in the video thinks she has outsmarted those who formulated the observer effect,

No she doesn't. She understands what they said.

originally posted by: Phage
The photon will behave like a wave when it encounters the slit whether or not anyone knows it.

The fundamental point of the observer effect, and demonstrated by experiment, is that analyzing the slit through a measuring device causes the photon to collapse from a probabilistic waveform into a material particle. The photon behaves like a particle only when it is being analyzed by the machine. It is a repeatable, observable fact.

a reply to: cooperton

The photon behaves like a particle only when it is being analyzed by the machine.

How do you know?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
The photon will behave like a wave when it encounters the slit whether or not anyone knows it.

The fundamental point of the observer effect, and demonstrated by experiment, is that analyzing the slit through a measuring device causes the photon to collapse from a probabilistic waveform into a material particle. The photon behaves like a particle only when it is being analyzed by the machine. It is a repeatable, observable fact.

Can't quote because I'm on mobile, but you have some reading to do.


blogs.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: cooperton

I don't understand your point? How is anyone denying science?????

a reply to: cooperton

I think you should read up on the quantum eraser experiment and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment to get a handle on what's happening here. The photon doesn't "know" anything. The observer isn't affecting anything. This is about the measurement problem.

a reply to: cooperton

Read this paper (the word "gedanken" is German for thought, in this case thought experiment).

Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom
A. G. Manning, R. I. Khakimov, R. G. Dall & A. G. Truscott
Nature Physics volume 11, pages 539–542 (2015) | Download Citation

www.nature.com...

Abstract

The wave–particle dual nature of light and matter and the fact that the choice of measurement determines which one of these two seemingly incompatible behaviours we observe are examples of the counterintuitive features of quantum mechanics. They are illustrated by Wheeler’s famous ‘delayed-choice’ experiment1, recently demonstrated in a single-photon experiment2. Here, we use a single ultracold metastable helium atom in a Mach–Zehnder interferometer to create an atomic analogue of Wheeler’s original proposal.

Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place1.

This result is encouraging for current work towards entanglement and Bell’s theorem tests in macroscopic systems of massive particles3.

originally posted by: luthier

Humans are also distinct that learning directly correlates with adaptation as we are born with nearly no instinct for survival other by social structure.

I wouldn't go that far. Our emotions can be survival instincts and many other animals use intellect to help survive. We have just evolved toward intelligence and creative problem solving as our primary survival trait, thus we don't need those primal instincts, although we definitely still have some. There are still tons of people that base most of their life decisions on fear. That is living on instinct over intelligence.

But no I dont speculate they are true just pointing out to change human history something like survival of the species could simply be controlling fire etc, and as far as other ways aliens could manipulate human genetics is simply like we do with dogs, maybe they also study social evolution and put different pressures on the human race etc..

It's interesting to think about. The issue I see is that it takes a very long time. If they were really that advanced, one would think they wouldn't need to let it come about so slowly, they would be able to directly modify the DNA to whatever characteristics / traits they chose. I'm definitely not saying it's out of the question, but it does make you wonder, where THEY came from. If they evolved intelligence naturally on another world before us, then why couldn't humans have eventually just done the same naturally?

I mean abiogenesis is nuts too. Even though it's likely. To think it all came together in the perfect situation is pretty amazing and hard to fathom when you start at the big bang. Panspermia sort of leads back to the possibility of more advanced beings.

If we evolve by our own engineering to not need sex for reproduction say in some sort of combining of human and computer merge and that lives for a million years, are computers then the best way to have genetic variance and survival, would we always fight unintended natural evolutionary pressure? Crazy to think about.

Yep that is a great question. A question of the ages. It's crazy because the way things are improving with technology, we may actually find that out in a hundred years or so.

a reply to: luthier

Not a problem. Words have power, and need to be applied properly