Then RM & NS Created Them Male And Female

[seer]

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

This is interesting Sam, how do you know this? Couldn’t there be a point where just a few mutations would send a specific group in a population over the edge so to speak? After the long period of accumulations you were referencing?

[Ansgar Seraph]

This is interesting Sam, how do you know this? Couldn’t there be a point where just a few mutations would send a specific group in a population over the edge so to speak? After the long period of accumulations you were referencing?

Over what edge? The edge of speciation or the edge of infertility? We certainly find some individuals in a population that are infertile . . . but those folk simply don't pass on their genes. But there is no "over the edge" for speciation. There is no distinct line between an ancestor population and a directly descendant population. Mammalian evolution simply doesn't work like that. We call that the "hopeful monster" theory.

—Sam

[seer]

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.

I don't know how long. Certainly we can not interbred with our present day "cousins." How long ago were we more similar to them? How many species did it take to get us here? I would suspect that we could not interbred with any of these hundreds (thousands?) of species that gave rise to us.

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

So are you suggesting that our reproductive systems are similar enough to all the species that gave rise to us to interbred?

[Ansgar Seraph]

I don't know how long. Certainly we can not interbred with our present day "cousins." How long ago were we more similar to them? How many species did it take to get us here? I would suspect that we could not interbred with any of these hundreds (thousands?) of species that gave rise to us.

But how is that germane to your OP? We're not talking about a human mating with a chimpanzee and creating a new species. We're talking about individuals within the same population mating. Why would it matter that we cannot interbreed with species whose common ancestor lived eight million years ago?

That's a problem, here. You don't have a scope in mind for your argument. You need that if you're going to ask this question.

So are you suggesting that our reproductive systems are similar enough to all the species that gave rise to us, to interbred?

No. Our reproductive systems are similar enough with members of our own population to interbreed. Over long periods of time, our population might become isolated and our shared genotype will become distinct enough from other populations to justify our population being classified as a new species.

—Sam

[magellan004]

Do you know what punctuated equilibrium is, or what it refers to? If you are just dismissing words you don't understand, you're not very persuasive.

Yes I do know what it is. It is one of the many pieces of putty filling up the 'Evolution of The Gaps Theory'.

And if you are not satisfied that any practical test meets your satisfaction, does this then mean you are satisfied with magic as the default, where no testing is necessary or even possible?

Ohhh. Do I detect an admission about testing and Species?
I will ask this because I think you have more guts than most other rabid evolutionists -
I challenge you to discuss the matter of whether 'Such and such belongs to Species A ' is testable, using concepts of testing etc that we both agree on.
In regard to your next post about 'It has been done before' , in our discussion, if you agree, neither of us quote links or references unless we can explain exactly what the reference contains. For example - 'They found that Southern Ocean Orcas were a different species' - we would need to explain how they tested that.

If it has been tested, one nice thing about science is that the exact test is published, peer reviewed, replicated, disputed, re-examined by people with different ideas who publish their own tests in great detail, etc. The scientific literature is vast, but it is largely inaccessible to those lacking the requisite education.

Who may not know squat about anything EXCEPT that those who disagree with him are wrong. No matter how much they may know.

We shall see. If you are shy of the topic of Species than how about Common Descent'?

Magellan

[phank]

Yes I do know what it is. It is one of the many pieces of putty filling up the 'Evolution of The Gaps Theory'.

Ah, now there is a good coherent, detailed scientific description. I'm going to tentatively assume you have NO IDEA what punctuated equilibrium might be.

Ohhh. Do I detect an admission about testing and Species?

Nope, you detect repeated observations that you don't understand science, or testing, or species.

I will ask this because I think you have more guts than most other rabid evolutionists -
I challenge you to discuss the matter of whether 'Such and such belongs to Species A ' is testable, using concepts of testing etc that we both agree on.

FIRST, you need to agree on concepts of species. For most purposes, a species is considered an interbreeding population of individuals, with the understanding that SOME of those individuals might never choose to interbreed with OTHER individuals within the same population. According, the test of whether an organism belongs to that species is, does it elect to interbreed with another member of that population. If it does, it's the same species.

In regard to your next post about 'It has been done before' , in our discussion, if you agree, neither of us quote links or references unless we can explain exactly what the reference contains. For example - 'They found that Southern Ocean Orcas were a different species' - we would need to explain how they tested that.

These distinctions follow the same pattern. If there are two NON-interbreeding populations of orcas, then they are regarded as different species. It's entirely possible that these different populations COULD interbreed with one another, but if they don't then by convention they are a different species (and PLEASE note that the concept of species is a CONVENTION, not a biological distinction). Now, if that orca population shares a range with another population, it's often not possible to determine if no interpopulation breeding ever occurs. At best, many individuals are tagged and traced, and if no such interbreeding occurs despite opportunity to do so, that's the test.

We shall see. If you are shy of the topic of Species than how about Common Descent'?

But as you see, I don't mind talking about species at all. Never have.

Nor do I mind talking about common descent, but why don't you just fire up Google and start reading? In a few weeks, the idea and corroborating evidence should start to soak in. And as you read, bear in mind that a theory is a proposed best-fit explanation of all that has been observed. The tests are, (1) is there an explanation that better fits all the evidence; and (2) Is there any evidence in conflict with the proposed explanation.

Hopefully, eventually, you will realize that the "test" of a scientific theory isn't like an arithmetic test, where you get the right answer or you don't. Instead, you get observations which either support a hypothesis, or conflict with it. And as we have discussed, supporting observations are never "proof" and conflicting observations are not necessarily "falsifications". The world of science is not nearly as black-and-white as you seem to wish to believe.

[shunyadragon]

Even if the question wasn't worded correctly, it's premise is still valid. How could something like sexual reproduction ever evolve, especially since it would most likely be selected against before it could even reach functionality?

What is the basis for the assumption that it would be selected against?

[shunyadragon]

Well, it would be selected against, because it's inefficient(compared to asexual reproduction), dangerous(check out the elephant mouse), less genes from each parent get passed on(which would make evolving certain traits about twice as difficult) there are problems with immune system functionality etc. This is just a few things that make sex more likely to be selected against, especially if the organism is already capable of asexual reproduction. I will search for the other threads about this topic, because I would like to see what they have to say.

Actually no, it is not more inefficient. what you describe above is actually a bit confusing, selective and not clear. One great advantage to sexual reproduction is greater genetic diversity with in the species. Your selective reference to 'danger?' does not apply to sexual reproduction in general. You need more references to back this up I will check further on this myself.

[phank]

Actually no, it is not more inefficient. what you describe above is actually a bit confusing, selective and not clear. One great advantage to sexual reproduction is greater genetic diversity with in the species. Your selective reference to 'danger?' does not apply to sexual reproduction in general. You need more references to back this up I will check further on this myself.

Personally, I regard sexual reproduction as a most amazing and marvelous accident. Clearly it works fine, else it would not have survived and been adopted by nearly every eukaryotic organism including protists! But this does NOT mean it was inevitable, or even close. Quite likely it's a very very clumsy means of achieving what COULD have been done much more elegantly, except that evolution never blundered onto any of the potentially very large number of superior mechanisms.

I believe that, like nearly everything evolution does, sexual reproduction is a kludge, WAY suboptimal, that happened to work well enough to bend the twig in that direction (and as the twig is bent, the tree is inclined).

[shunyadragon]

So? That does not make it any more likely. Good back a thousand species to the primates that gave rise to us. How may hundereds, if not thousands, of small changes would it take to get the the human male reproductive system to where it is today. All the while the female of the species(ies) is experiencing similar mutations that just happened to be complementary to the changes in the male. Just happened to acquire the necessary corresponding changes. Ok, if you say so....

Such coincidence is not a factor, in evolution over hundreds of millions of years. actually it is more like tens if not hundreds of thousands of steps overthe millions of years

no problem

[wattsr1]

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 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.

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…

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?

[Carrikature]

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?

Setting aside my incorrect assumptions (which we already discussed in the shoutbox), did you get a satisfactory answer about seahorses?

[magellan004]

Ah, now there is a good coherent, detailed scientific description. I'm going to tentatively assume you have NO IDEA what punctuated equilibrium might be.

Nope, you detect repeated observations that you don't understand science, or testing, or species.

FIRST, you need to agree on concepts of species. For most purposes, a species is considered an interbreeding population of individuals, with the understanding that SOME of those individuals might never choose to interbreed with OTHER individuals within the same population. According, the test of whether an organism belongs to that species is, does it elect to interbreed with another member of that population. If it does, it's the same species.

These distinctions follow the same pattern. If there are two NON-interbreeding populations of orcas, then they are regarded as different species. It's entirely possible that these different populations COULD interbreed with one another, but if they don't then by convention they are a different species (and PLEASE note that the concept of species is a CONVENTION, not a biological distinction). Now, if that orca population shares a range with another population, it's often not possible to determine if no interpopulation breeding ever occurs. At best, many individuals are tagged and traced, and if no such interbreeding occurs despite opportunity to do so, that's the test.

But as you see, I don't mind talking about species at all. Never have.

Nor do I mind talking about common descent, but why don't you just fire up Google and start reading? In a few weeks, the idea and corroborating evidence should start to soak in. And as you read, bear in mind that a theory is a proposed best-fit explanation of all that has been observed. The tests are, (1) is there an explanation that better fits all the evidence; and (2) Is there any evidence in conflict with the proposed explanation.

Hopefully, eventually, you will realize that the "test" of a scientific theory isn't like an arithmetic test, where you get the right answer or you don't. Instead, you get observations which either support a hypothesis, or conflict with it. And as we have discussed, supporting observations are never "proof" and conflicting observations are not necessarily "falsifications". The world of science is not nearly as black-and-white as you seem to wish to believe.

’ FIRST, you need to agree on concepts of species. ‘ Almost correct. We need to agree on concepts of Species. Otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes. But I’ll make it easy for you – Use whatever concept of species you like.

You suggest some sort of interbreeding test. Isn’t a ‘population’ defined as organisms which do elect to interbreed with one another? If so you couldn’t base a test on a population. Are you sure you have thought this through?

You say ‘If there are two NON-interbreeding populations of orcas, … ‘. Assuming you are suggesting this as a test – how do you know they are Orcas if you are setting up a test to see if Animal A belongs to the same Species as Animal B? Maybe you would start off with “kinds’ of animals. If so – you would need to agree on a concept of Kind.

Are you sure you have thought about how testing of Species might be done?

Put it this way – If we start with a garage full of Ford cars and decide to test if one of the cars is a Ford – we wouldn’t really be testing for much, would we?

The upshot of all this is – No matter what concepts, definitions and tests you use, I can give equally scientific concepts, tests etc. for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

If you are going to use a ‘Fuzzy edged’ notion of Species then you have to allow fuzziness for ‘Design’ too. If you are going to say ‘Someone judges whether it is the same species’ then you have to allow someone’s judgement about design. If you are going to test for species by selecting animals who’s species we already know, then allow me to select items that we already know are designed.

You will always find, using criteria determined by yourself, that the Theory of Intelligent Design ticks every box that the Theory of Evolution ticks. So the conclusion has to be that Intelligent Design is scientific.. You won’t accept that but if you and others are going to criticise ID then how about subjecting Evolution to the same scrutiny?

No more accusations that I don’t know evolution. It’s time for you to Stand and Deliver! How might you test whether Organism A belongs to a new Species?




Magellan

[seer]

(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?

Jorge

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

[Cerebrum123]

Setting aside my incorrect assumptions (which we already discussed in the shoutbox), did you get a satisfactory answer about seahorses?

I was going to take a look at pancreasman's link(I think he gave one a few pages ago), but I haven't done so yet. I will check it out, and if I have more questions I will ask them.