Then RM & NS Created Them Male And Female

[seer]

Seer, here is an excellent lecture from a Yale Department of Biology online series about evolution

The Evolution of Sex

The whole lecture series consists of some 36 different lectures on various important topics in ToE, such as the difference between micro-and macro evolution, speciation, basics of genetics, etc.

It would be extremely helpful to you (and all the Creationists here) to watch them.

I tried, the sound on my lap top sucks - I can't hear it.

[rogue06]

*******************************************************************

I see your reading skills are as poor as they have always been.

Irony alert ahead

Here's what c123 said, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION :

Yup. That's what he said. But AS was addressing the OP and seer never said anything like that. Now what were you saying about poor reading skills?

The origin of sexual reproduction is one of the major problems that plagues Evolutionism.

There are still several mysteries concerning the evolution of sexual reproduction. But you are confusing not knowing everything about it with not knowing anything about it.

[Carrikature]

First, no I'm not assuming that the matches have to be "perfect." But they have to be close enough to allow reproduction.

This 'close enough' is wider than you think. Again, unless there is a major change from one generation to the next, then most of members of a given population can mate.

Listen, there has to be points where a male of a species, for instance, could no longer interbred with the parent population

No. The parent population is not distant enough.

- or at least could not have interbred with its distant ancestors. The respective reproductive systems would no longer be compatible.

Yes. Mutations over time will add up. This doesn't imply that there was a major jump anywhere, though. Little changes on top of little changes over the centuries (or longer). I'm going to see if I can find that paper on E. coli mutations. The study was done over a period of twenty years, but for E. coli that corresponds to 400+ generations.

Now you suggest that mutations could spread through the population that could bring both corresponding and compatible changes in both genders. Ok, but that is still very lucky - considering how many of these corresponding/compatible must have happened over time.

A few things here. First, any change in one gender will automatically start to select for the corresponding trait in the other. This doesn't happen overnight, though. This does happen over generations, though. Second, it is my understanding that within a large enough population, most of these changes will be both minor and irrelevant. There are enough changes that somewhere will be a suitable mate. This is what wattsr1 has been saying. Finally, calling it luck is a red herring. The processes are random, yes, but they have limiting factors. Your insistence on calling it luck only shows your level of incredulity. It's not a viable argument of any sort.

[Jorge]

Seer, here is an excellent lecture from a Yale Department of Biology online series about evolution

The Evolution of Sex

The whole lecture series consists of some 36 different lectures on various important topics in ToE, such as the difference between micro-and macro evolution, speciation, basics of genetics, etc.

It would be extremely helpful to you (and all the Creationists here) to watch them.

HTH.

- T

********************************************************************

I watched as much of it as I could stomach - about 12 wasted
minutes from my life that I will never get back.

What I saw was an Evo-Faithful Apostle that already assumes / believes it all happened by
evolution and is now telling a series of imaginative just-so stories on why / how it happened.
This was exactly as I had said in my earlier post. One funny part was when he admits that
sexual reproduction is "incredibly expensive" - something that we all know. There is really
no good reason for life to have (allegedly) evolved sexual reproduction given the fact of its
high cost - yet it (allegedly) did. None of these bozos can explain WHY this is so - they
usually just avoid the question. When they do answer, the typical, parroted reason given is
because of the "advantages that sexual reproduction confers".

Here's the problem: by their own admission, it would have taken millions of generations / years
for sexual reproduction to have "evolved" and, until it evolved there would NOT have been any
of this alleged "advantage". So,

(1) What was happening in the meantime while the organism had the high cost of maintaining
a NON-functional, incomplete sexual reproductive system? It HAD to retain its asexual
reproductive capability or extinction would have occurred immediately.

(2) Why did the 'evolution' of sexual reproduction continue given that it was non-functional
and had a very high maintenance cost thereby providing no advantages but many disadvantages?

(3) The alleged 'evolution' would have had to continue simultaneously and coordinated
between male & female -- quite a neat trick given that there was no intelligent, purpose agent
guiding things along. How did this simultaneous coordination of male/female sex occur?

Again, all they have are just-so stories suitable for gullible Evo-Faithful.

Move along folks, move along ... there's nothing here to see -- nothing worthwhile, that is.

P.S. This post is for OTHERS - certainly not for Tiggy the Klown and the questions are left for
the reader to ponder - I am not expecting any answers. Gracias !

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

*******************************************************************

I see your reading skills are as poor as they have always been.

Here's what c123 said, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION :

"That still doesn't explain how different genders could develop from an asexual life form."

The origin of sexual reproduction is one of the major problems that plagues Evolutionism.
The only answers the Evo-Faithful have are just-so stories that are as nonsensical as they are imaginative.

Jorge

Oh, Jorge. The wonderful irony!

The question I was referring Cerebrum123 to was seer's OP, which did not include as part of the topic, questions about the origin of sexual reproduction.

Maybe you need to brush up on those . . . reading skills?

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

What I'm questioning Sam is the sheer luck of it all. That over this time period you have such corresponding and complementary changes in the genders. Mutations for instance produce a change in the male, then mutations come about in the female that just happen to correspond or take advantage of the changes in the male (it could be vice versa of course). And this lucky set of events happened over how many species?

Well, humor me here and let's go back to my question about adaptations. You surely agree that different groups of humans have different sets of adaptations that can be attributed to genetic mutations. Do these different groups of humans have significant problems interbreeding?

[Cerebrum123]

You almost had me believing you *might* be sincere. Right up until a simple google search showed me this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...16/n3/seahorse.


Despite that...
Even a quick google search points out possible scenarios. Seahorses are related to pipefish. Not all pipefish even have fully developed pouches. Some just have sticky patches of skin which the eggs adhere to. Again, not a biologist. Easy to see, however, that whatever mutation created this stick patch, the chances of survival for the offspring of this seahorse/pipefish go up significantly. Now, the eggs have to get eaten by something that actually eats seahorses as opposed to eggs left lying in a nest which won't be constantly guarded.

It's really not that hard to use a little brainpower and connect logical dots. I don't even have to have all the specifics, the gist is sufficient. Once again, I'm not even a biologist. I've had A dual-credit biology class in high school. That's it. Also important to remember, given the AiG reference, is that even if there are cases where the actual evolutionary path is unknown, the number of paths that can be clearly followed greatly outweigh whatever isn't. There simply isn't going to be a "Gotcha!" moment, despite wishes otherwise.

I haven't even READ that article, and I WAS asking a sincere question. Does a YEC have to consult EVERY YEC source before he asks a question? The above reaction made you look like a jerk trying to practice his mind reading skills, but I am willing to forget about it if you are, deal?

[Cerebrum123]

Yup. That's what he said. But AS was addressing the OP and seer never said anything like that. Now what were you saying about poor reading skills?

I was the one who said that about asexual organisms evolving sex, he must have gotten me confused with seer.

[seer]

Well, humor me here and let's go back to my question about adaptations. You surely agree that different groups of humans have different sets of adaptations that can be attributed to genetic mutations. Do these different groups of humans have significant problems interbreeding?

No they don't, but there certainly is (I assume) significant problems interbreeding with other primates. And I will assume that we could not bred with our ancient primate ancestors any more that we could with our present day "cousins." As far as our human reproductive systems of today - they seem quite stable and pretty much (or exactly) the same throughout our species. So I'm not sure what you mean by "different adaptations."

[phank]

I don't think any of this removes the extremely fortunate turn of events that would have been necessary to develop corresponding and compatible reproductive systems.

Well certainly, in our daily lives, we can discern when an intelligent force has manipulated the natural world. If I walk along the beach and see a heart drawn in the sand with an arrow through it - I could assume that the tide and washed up drift wood did it - or I can assume an intelligent source. I see no logical or scientific reason why we can’t look for, or accept, a intelligent hand. Besides bias…

I think I see the problem here. If we assume that the GOAL of evolution was to produce sexual reproduction, then I would say that Intelligent Guidance would have been absolutely required, because otherwise the chance of achieving that particular goal might be too small to measure. But evolution has no goal. The chance of evolution producing SOMETHING is unity. The chance of it producing any specific prespecified something is vanishingly small.

Seer, what you're doing is looking at your bridge hand AFTER the deal, and noticing that the chance of getting that particular hand and no other is so tiny it must have been a miracle ir divinely determined or some such. But BEFORE the deal you know that you are guaranteed to get an unlikely hand. You just don't know which one.

So I can understand why all of the many links you've been provided about how sexual reproduction originated aren't going to answer your question. Maybe a better way of looking at it is, evolution could have produced any one of an infinite number of methods, and you or something like you would be looking at the one that just happened to occur and marveling at its unlikelihood.

[Ansgar Seraph]

No they don't, but there certainly is (I assume) significant problems interbreeding with other primates. And I will assume that we could not bred with our ancient primate ancestors any more that we could with our present day "cousins." As far as our human reproductive systems of today - they seem quite stable and pretty much (or exactly) the same throughout our species. So I'm not sure what you mean by "different adaptations."

Well, we both agree that individual offspring carry new mutations (to the tune of ~100 - 200 per individual) and that various populations of humans have different adaptations because of these mutations becoming prevalent, if not fixed, in a given population. Some of these prevalent or fixed mutations might affect the reproductive system but they obviously haven't done so to any significant effect. Now to the question: what is to prevent an isolated population of humans from accruing these adaptations over a longer period of time? If a human population were isolated for, say, one million years, would there ever be a point where an individual accrued so many mutations that she could not interbreed within her own population?

You see, no one ever argued that proto-humans bred with their distant primate cousins. We're not talking about vast genetic differences between populations. We're talking about incremental genetic changes within one population. Small changes that do not significantly alter reproductive systems within a single generation. The same process that creates new adaptations also creates new species — the only difference is the length of time necessary. There was no point where two non-humans created a human offspring. That offspring might have an adaptation that we classify as human (say, a slightly deformed bicuspid) but a group of paleontologists would not be able to draw a definitive line between the offspring's species classification and the parents' species classification. Given enough time and enough genetic separation of populations we are able to clearly classify different species but it doesn't work on the individual level.

Speciation occurs between populations, not between individuals.

—Sam

[Tiggy]

I tried, the sound on my lap top sucks - I can't hear it.

Then find another computer that does have sound. If you want to learn what science knows about the topic that is.

If not...

- T

[Ansgar Seraph]

If a human population were isolated for, say, one million years, would there ever be a point where an individual accrued so many mutations that she could not interbreed within her own population?

Should read: "would there ever be a point where an individual accrued so many mutations that she could not interbreed within her own generation?"

[seer]

Well, we both agree that individual offspring carry new mutations (to the tune of ~100 - 200 per individual) and that various populations of humans have different adaptations because of these mutations becoming prevalent, if not fixed, in a given population. Some of these prevalent or fixed mutations might affect the reproductive system but they obviously haven't done so to any significant effect. Now to the question: what is to prevent an isolated population of humans from accruing these adaptations over a longer period of time? If a human population were isolated for, say, one million years, would there ever be a point where an individual accrued so many mutations that she could not interbreed within her own population?

Ok

You see, no one ever argued that proto-humans bred with their distant primate cousins. We're not talking about vast genetic differences between populations. We're talking about incremental genetic changes within one population. Small changes that do not significantly alter reproductive systems within a single generation. The same process that creates new adaptations also creates new species — the only difference is the length of time necessary. There was no point where two non-humans created a human offspring. That offspring might have an adaptation that we classify as human (say, a slightly deformed bicuspid) but a group of paleontologists would not be able to draw a definitive line between the offspring's species classification and the parents' species classification. Given enough time and enough genetic separation of populations we are able to clearly classify different species but it doesn't work on the individual level.

We are still left with a very fortunate set of events. There still would be many species in our line that could not longer interbred. So not only do these mutations have to effect one of the genders, they would also have to effect the opposite gender in a way that is compatible or corresponding. And this would have to occur time and time again over the millenniums.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Ok

We are still left with a very fortunate set of events. There still would be many species in our line that could not longer interbred. So not only do these mutations have to effect one of the genders, they would also have to effect the opposite gender in a way that is compatible or corresponding. And this would have to occur time and time again over the millenniums.

That could no longer interbreed with whom? Individuals in their own generation? Individuals five generations back? Individuals 200,000 years ago? Please define the scope of your statement.

And mutations even to reproductive systems do not necessarily require a corresponding mutation among individuals of the other gender. A mutation affecting penis length, for example, doesn't need a corresponding mutation. A mutation affecting the permeability of an egg doesn't need a corresponding mutation so long as the permeability doesn't change drastically. What mutations do you have in mind when you say that a reproductive mutation necessitates a corresponding mutation?

—Sam