Then RM & NS Created Them Male And Female

[seer]

Well again, not necessarily:-

1) If a population is large enough, and there is enough time, then unlikely things do have a likelihood of occurring,

2) There is not necessarily just one solution to how organisms mate. If there are several different solutions to the one problem then the likelihood of it being solved are improved.

This was kind of my point in the OP. It's not just that we have change in the respective reproductive systems of the male and female over time - we have to have corresponding changes that complement each other. And I imagine if we go back to our first ancestors that were male and female there would have been many significant and corresponding changes. Like I said - it all seems rather lucky to me. But I could be wrong.

Well of course it's always possible. But so what? Are you saying that the evidence is for a human designer? If not, then how did you work out that sex could have been designed by an intelligent designer, other than a human?

It's also possible that such a designer put the dust up on the top of my cupboards. After all, when we see a random doodle, we can often point to it and say, "intelligent designer".

Besides, engineers are now showing that using a Darwinian approach to the solving of design problems allows them to derive solutions beyond the capacity of their own minds to fathom. So are you suggesting that your ID built a system with RM+NS because it had no idea how to solve the problem of animal diversity?

What could you see in the natural world that would serve as evidence of an intelligent hand? What would convince you, or at least make you wonder?

[Cerebrum123]

I read the article that pancreasman linked to(can't watch the videos Tiggy linked to, I have a problem watching online videos , I do better with text), and all I saw were certain reasons that evolving sex would have SOME advantage(and apparently not that big of an advantage either), and this doesn't explain the ORIGIN of sex. The same goes with the seahorse, and unless the seahorse evolved from something that evolved sex in the same way(originally at the very first "evolutionary stage"), then it just doesn't make sense how small incremental changes over vast periods could accomplish something like that at all(especially since there would be an unknown amount of "intermediate" forms that would essentially have very costly, and essentially useless formations for all of those unknown generations).
I really have been looking at evidence on BOTH sides of this debate, but so far evolution makes 0 sense in a scientific sense, or in a scriptural sense.

[rogue06]

If you are going to use a ‘Fuzzy edged’ notion of Species then you have to allow fuzziness for ‘Design’ too.

A more proper comparison is between the concept of species and kinds. And with that, once again...

Now I can already hear the objections: “Since biologists can’t agree on a universal and functional definition for species you can’t blame YECs for not defining kinds.” But there is a profound difference. Biologists realize that “species” is and needs to be an arbitrary grouping, since one species can slowly evolve into another shades of gray between them will exist and should be expected to exist.

Basically, the definition of “species” must be relatively open-ended if evolution is correct since all living creatures are related to each other. Species, by its very nature, is an inexact term because an animal isn't, for instance, either a lizard or not a lizard, with an exclusive set of traits that are either 100% lizard or 0% lizard, just like a pile of sand isn't either a pile or not a pile, with the addition of one grain of sand (the Sorites problem).

In stark contrast, YECs claim that “kinds” are distinct and that one can’t evolve into another – there are absolutely no shades of gray. Therefore, since “kinds” are “distinct,” it should be a rather simple thing to identify them (or at least explain why they must remain “fixed”).

But we don’t see distinct kinds like that. Instead, we see a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For instance, there are thought to be 350,000 species of Beetle so we are faced with wondering if each species is a kind or if beetles themselves are a kind, or are they members of the “Insect Kind,” or “Arthropod Kind” – all depending on how inclusive the kind is.

The point being, that no matter where you set the cut-off for how inclusive a kind is, there will always be a lot of groups just bordering on that cutoff. And as I already noted, this pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution not what one expects to see in the YEC model.

And wrt "kinds," the fact that some YECs sometimes speak of “plants” (an entire Kingdom) as a “kind” demonstrates that among many YECs in practical use a "kind" is whatever grouping is needed at the moment. Segmented worms (Annelida) represent an entire phylum, yet are called worm kind. Just to give you a hint at how asinine this is, humans, along with all other mammals along with reptiles, birds, amphibians or anything else with a spinal cord, are all members of the phyla Chordata.

Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution has also claimed in an interview that phyla might represent the original kinds.

[Leonhard]

Are not these points from Jorge valid? Where is he wrong?

Jorge is a troll, we tend to avoid interacting with him.

[rogue06]

Jorge is a troll, we tend to avoid interacting with him.

While I may understand your sentiment I'm willing to bet that seer will find this to be a less than satisfactory reply.

[Carrikature]

Aha, I finally found it.

Richard Lenski of Michigan State University has been involved with a long-term evolution experiment utilizing E. coli since 1988. What is really cool is that at around 31,500 generations, they noticed that some strains of E. coli had developed the ability to process citrate for energy. The typical inability of E. coli to do this is a defining characteristic. Upon further research and back-tracking, they discovered that sometime around 20,000 generations, a particular mutation had to have taken place which later led to this ability. However, it's also important to note that further experimentation with clones of strains from Gen20k+ only reproduced citrate processing in about one in one trillion cells.

What's also really cool about this long-term experiment is that, given the number of generations to date, it's estimated that every possible single-pair mutation has likely occurred multiple times over the course of this experiment.
Further reading:

Wikipedia link for general overview.

New Scientist article on the development of citrate processing.

Published article by Lenski, et. al., regarding this development.



ETA: From the wikipedia article: "The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased—rapidly at first, but leveling off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain."

This seems to correlate nicely with the beginnings of the switch to citrate utilization.

[rogue06]

Aha, I finally found it.

Richard Lenski of Michigan State University has been involved with a long-term evolution experiment utilizing E. coli since 1988. What is really cool is that at around 31,500 generations, they noticed that some strains of E. coli had developed the ability to process citrate for energy. The typical inability of E. coli to do this is a defining characteristic. Upon further research and back-tracking, they discovered that sometime around 20,000 generations, a particular mutation had to have taken place which later led to this ability. However, it's also important to note that further experimentation with clones of strains from Gen20k+ only reproduced citrate processing in about one in one trillion cells.

What's also really cool about this long-term experiment is that, given the number of generations to date, it's estimated that every possible single-pair mutation has likely occurred multiple times over the course of this experiment.
Further reading:

Wikipedia link for general overview.

New Scientist article on the development of citrate processing.

Published article by Lenski, et. al., regarding this development.



ETA: From the wikipedia article: "The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased—rapidly at first, but leveling off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain."

This seems to correlate nicely with the beginnings of the switch to citrate utilization.

Similar to nylonase -- the nylon-eating bacteria. Since nylon is not found in nature and wasn't invented until 1935 it is safe to say that these Flavobacterium developed the ability to digest nylon only recently.

[seer]

Jorge is a troll, we tend to avoid interacting with him.

Ok, well I'm asking - which one of his points is factually wrong?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Are not these points from Jorge valid? Where is he wrong?

Well, he's wrong because Jorge never gets very far past the conjecture part of a discussion. Jorge doesn't know that the potentiating mutations for sexual reproduction were non-functional, he doesn't know what the maintenance cost was and he doesn't know what the ratio of advantages to disadvantages was. He imagines that any mutation leading to sexual reproduction was purposed solely for sexual reproduction and could not have been useful for any other function before being co-opted into a new system. He's just making up limitations out of thin air.

I'm interested to know why Jorge thinks that the origination of sexual reproduction helps this case at all. We're talking about speciation among mammals; sexual reproduction, by evolutionary history, had long been "on the books" by the time mammals arrived on earth. So even if we were to grant an OEC paradigm as valid, it doesn't change anything about the OP's question, which is how do speciation events occur. Even if sexual reproduction were created by God at some deep point in time, we still have speciation events occurring throughout history and crossing into new genera, families, and orders in the mammalian class.

—Sam

[seer]

Well, he's wrong because Jorge never gets very far past the conjecture part of a discussion. Jorge doesn't know that the potentiating mutations for sexual reproduction were non-functional, he doesn't know what the maintenance cost was and he doesn't know what the ratio of advantages to disadvantages was. He imagines that any mutation leading to sexual reproduction was purposed solely for sexual reproduction and could not have been useful for any other function before being co-opted into a new system. He's just making up limitations out of thin air.

I'm interested to know why Jorge thinks that the origination of sexual reproduction helps this case at all. We're talking about speciation among mammals; sexual reproduction, by evolutionary history, had long been "on the books" by the time mammals arrived on earth. So even if we were to grant an OEC paradigm as valid, it doesn't change anything about the OP's question, which is how do speciation events occur. Even if sexual reproduction were created by God at some deep point in time, we still have speciation events occurring throughout history and crossing into new genera, families, and orders in the mammalian class.

—Sam

Well I would like to see exactly which point of his was wrong and why. And yes, this does not deal with the OP but it is close enough. And to be honest I do not see what advantage there would be for, let's say, bacteria, if it now had to find a mate to reproduce. That doesn't make sense.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well I would like to see exactly which point of his was wrong and why. And yes, this does not deal with the OP but it is close enough. And to be honest I do not see what advantage there would be for, let's say bacteria, if it now had to find a mate to reproduce. That doesn't make sense.

I wrote how he's wrong — Jorge didn't give any evidence for his claims (he can't know any more about the potentiating mutations of sexual reproduction than anyone else). He simply asserted that those mutations were non-functional and high maintenance before they could create the system for sexual reproduction. But that isn't how we've observed evolution to work. Carikature mentioned citrate-eating bacteria. When Lenski looked back to figure out how e. coli mutated to consume citrate, his team discovered that one of the potentiating mutations actually conferred a slightly negative selection effect. This mutation, however, was not detrimental enough to be selected out and "piggy-backed" on another mutation. Later, the mutation that enabled citrate consumption worked with this potentiating mutation to form the citrate-consumption function.

So we've observed a situation where a slightly detrimental mutation remained in the genetic pool of a population, having no positive selection benefit, but was later co-opted by another set of mutations to confer a significant selection advantage to an organism. Even given Jorge's made-up limitations, therefore, we've seen how those limitations do not prevent evolutionary progress. But I'll point out again that Jorge doesn't have the slightest idea of what the potentiating mutations for sexual reproduction were, what their functionality was, what maintenance cost they put on the population or what the advantages and disadvantages were. Ask him for evidence of any of these claims and he'll beat it to the door again.

Sexual reproduction has some big benefits, including widening the gene pool (sexual recombination) and important error-reduction (avoiding Muller's Ratchet). A population of bacteria than can sexually reproduce, therefore, could significantly reduce the number of deleterious mutations in the gene pool while simultaneously making that gene pool wider and more adaptable to a changing environment.

But I don't think that there's much merit to creationists and skeptics continually trying to push a line of questioning back to the most abstract points in history. If you don't quite get how speciation occurs within a population of mammals, do you really expect to get the finer points of mutations and selective advantages? I'd tackle the less ambiguous issue first.

—Sam

[Carrikature]

Keep in mind also that sexual reproduction started with two genderless cells. It would only be (much) later that specific male/female roles would develop, for various reasons.

[Cerebrum123]

Well, he's wrong because Jorge never gets very far past the conjecture part of a discussion. Jorge doesn't know that the potentiating mutations for sexual reproduction were non-functional, he doesn't know what the maintenance cost was and he doesn't know what the ratio of advantages to disadvantages was. He imagines that any mutation leading to sexual reproduction was purposed solely for sexual reproduction and could not have been useful for any other function before being co-opted into a new system. He's just making up limitations out of thin air.

I'm interested to know why Jorge thinks that the origination of sexual reproduction helps this case at all. We're talking about speciation among mammals; sexual reproduction, by evolutionary history, had long been "on the books" by the time mammals arrived on earth. So even if we were to grant an OEC paradigm as valid, it doesn't change anything about the OP's question, which is how do speciation events occur. Even if sexual reproduction were created by God at some deep point in time, we still have speciation events occurring throughout history and crossing into new genera, families, and orders in the mammalian class.

—Sam

You don't know any of those things either, and IMO you are making loopholes out of thin air. A bit like the "Red Queen Hypothesis" it only names an advantage, and no ORIGIN of how sex could evolve. I often see evolutionists give their theory EVERY benefit of the doubt, but nitpick at EVERYTHING a YEC brings up. This even happens in subjects where ToE doesn't apply. If someone is a YEC, they are automatically blacklisted(I received similar treatment from Whag on this very site).

[shunyadragon]

I read the article that pancreasman linked to(can't watch the videos Tiggy linked to, I have a problem watching online videos , I do better with text), and all I saw were certain reasons that evolving sex would have SOME advantage(and apparently not that big of an advantage either), and this doesn't explain the ORIGIN of sex. The same goes with the seahorse, and unless the seahorse evolved from something that evolved sex in the same way(originally at the very first "evolutionary stage"), then it just doesn't make sense how small incremental changes over vast periods could accomplish something like that at all(especially since there would be an unknown amount of "intermediate" forms that would essentially have very costly, and essentially useless formations for all of those unknown generations).
I really have been looking at evidence on BOTH sides of this debate, but so far evolution makes 0 sense in a scientific sense, or in a scriptural sense.

In reality there is only one sense that makes sense, and that is in the scientific sense of evolution. The scriptural sense offers nothing on the issue whether there is an evolutionary advantage to sex. Scripture only offers a basis for bias against the science of evolution. The information you reviewed offered an explanation for some of the reasons male and female sex is advantageous in reproduction in both the plant and the animal world. The amount of advantage does not have to large, it just happens to be an advantage to the point that all complex life forms have the ability to reproduce sexually in terms of male and female organisms.

[rogue06]

This even happens in subjects where ToE doesn't apply. If someone is a YEC, they are automatically blacklisted(I received similar treatment from Whag on this very site).

I agree that this is some times a problem. During discussions on whether this or that scientist was "expelled" over their support of creationism/ID inevitably someone says that they would fire them because they are hopelessly out of touch with reality even if their work has nothing to do with evo/creationism.

This, I believe, is wrong. It shouldn't matter. Just because someone has, "unconventional" beliefs, in one area does not automatically make them incompetent in every endeavor they partake in.

For instance, Peter Duesberg said AIDS isn't caused by HIV which is certainly an oddball belief but he made important contributions to cancer research including discovering a gene that helps cause cancer. But his research was ignored because of his beliefs in other areas. That turned out to be a mistake.

And there are examples pertinent to this discussion: Ben Carson is a highly respected neurosurgeon and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He's been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest award for civilians. He’s performed many difficult operations -- including the first successful separation of twins conjoined at the back of the head, and has 61 honorary degrees. You can’t get much more eminent as a doctor. Carson is also a devout Seventh Day Adventist who doesn’t accept evolution but can anyone seriously say he isn't a first-class doctor?