Then RM & NS Created Them Male And Female

[shunyadragon]

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.

One of the main reasons is that increases the genetic diversity within the species.

[seer]

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.

Of course no one knows this, not only is Jorge ignorant of these past possibilities - we all are. And I would be hard pressed to think of what a penis (beside peeing) and vagina were used for beside sex and child birth (in the latter case).

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.

I don't get this - are not bacteria doing just fine as they are? Are they not actually one of the better survivors in nature? Really Sam, I can’t imagine how they could survive better by having to find a mate. You say there are "big benefits" - what would be the benefits for bacteria?

[shunyadragon]

I don't get this - are not bacteria doing just fine as they are? Are they not actually one of the better survivors in nature? Really Sam, I can’t imagine how they could survive better by having to find a mate. You say there are "big benefits" - what would be the benefits for bacteria?

Bacteria do just fine at there level of simplicity, but because of their reproductive limitations they have not evolved past their same basic form in hundreds of millions if not billions of years. This is basically true of all families of organisms that still have only asexual reproduction, they have never evolved past the same type of organisms that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

As complexity of reproduction increases with more options, like fungus (both asexual and simple forms of sexual reproduction), the species become more complex, variable and adaptive to different environments.

[Ansgar Seraph]

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).

That's somewhat true. While Jorge is making limitations out of thin air, what I have written has basis in observed evidence, as I explained using the e. coli citrate example. So I'm not making loopholes out of thin air; I'm extrapolating something that we've already observed to happen in evolutionary progress to something else. It's still tenuous (I never indicated that it wasn't) but it's not in the same category of assertion that Jorge's comment was.

But the stakes are different for evolutionists than for YECs (or OECs but that's a bit different). Evolutionists don't particularly need to figure out exactly how sexual reproduction evolved. Given the fossil evidence, it's sufficient for us to observe the evolution of biodiversity and determine that sexual evolution is also a plausible explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction. YECs, however, do not have the benefit of hard evidence serving as the foundation for ambiguous science. This thread is an excellent example: the topic is how new species can arise given random mutations in different human individuals. We can explain this very well and detail evidence that humans have, in fact, arisen by evolutionary means from a primate ancestor. This will be true regardless of whether sexual reproduction originated by evolution or was created by an intelligent source over 500 million years ago. But YEC cannot invalidate the evidence of human evolution by calling the origin of sexual reproduction into question. YECs have to deal with the evidence of claims on their own merits, rather than try to couch everything in terms of ambiguity.

So if the topic is the origination of sexual reproduction, we should talk about that. If the topic is abiogenesis, we should talk about that. But we shouldn't try to invalidate the topic of human evolution from a primate ancestor by diverting into the origination of sexual reproduction. It's not germane to the topic and it can only serve to obfuscate the much stronger evidence that more clearly refutes the YEC objection.

—Sam

[seer]

Bacteria do just fine at there level of simplicity, but because of their reproductive limitations they have not evolved past their same basic form in hundreds of millions if not billions of years. This is basically true of all families of organisms that still have only asexual reproduction, they have never evolved past the same type of organisms that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

But so what? If they have remained this way for so long then there would be no survival advantage in changing - survivability is the name of the game - correct? Come to think of it - there would be no survival advantage in change for any of the early life forms - if they were similar to bacteria.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Of course no one knows this, not only is Jorge ignorant of these past possibilities - we all are. And I would be hard pressed to think of what a penis (beside peeing) and vagina were used for beside sex and child birth (in the latter case).

Those organs would not have developed immediately. Indeed, such specific organs would develop a long time after sexual reproduction came into play.

Sure, but the problem is not the evolutionists'. All we need to do is show that the function is a plausible result of the evolutionary mechanism. Jorge (and others) need to show not only that the process isn't plausible but that the process is virtually impossible. But he can't do that; Jorge can say that the potentiating mutations were non-functional but he doesn't know that to be the case and the lab evidence of evolutionary process refutes the idea that mutations are necessarily non-functional or deleterious before they are used in a function or a system. Jorge can say that every mutation that is not selectively advantageous carries a high maintenance cost but, again, that idea has been refuted. So Jorge's task is much larger (ironically or not) than the evolutionist's task. We don't need to know the particulars of sexual reproduction mutations to determine that such evolution is plausible. Jorge does need the particulars to determine that it would be impossible.

I don't get this - are not bacteria doing just fine as they are? Are they not actually one of the better survivors in nature? Really Sam, I can’t imagine how they could survive better by having to find a mate. You say there are "big benefits" - what would be the benefits for bacteria?

Again, you need to have a scope for your argument. "Bacteria" encompasses an entire domain of organisms. Within that domain are separate phyla, classes, orders, familes, genera and species. So we're not talking about some nebulous idea of "bacteria." We're talking about specific populations accumulating mutations that, over an incredibly long period of time, would result in sexual reproductive systems.

I mentioned two of the big benefits that bacteria would gain from sexual reproduction. Rather than asking me for them again, why not respond to what I wrote above regarding sexual recombination and Muller's Ratchet?

And I have to note that, again, you are not looking at this properly; you say that asexual organisms are "doing just fine" as they are . . . but this ignores the fact that there are so very many organisms that reproduce sexually! If evolutionary theory is accurate, there was a time when there were no sexually-reproducing organisms. The fact that we find so many organisms reproducing sexually today, then, indicates that some populations did survive better by reproducing sexually. Which returns to my earlier point. If you can't grasp relatively simple distinctions between an individual and a population, you're not going to do well trying to imagine entire species containing many populations, entire genera containing many species, entire families containing many genera, and so on. You're getting tripped up now because you are conflating specific populations over long periods of time with entire domains reproducing over incredibly short periods of time. This tangent isn't helpful in evaluating your OP.

Sam

[shunyadragon]

But so what? If they have remained this way for so long then there would be no survival advantage in changing - survivability is the name of the game - correct? Come to think of it - there would be no survival advantage in change for any of the early life forms - if they were similar to bacteria.

Basically false big time. There has always been survival advantage for change throughout the history of life, even among the many many varieties of bacteria. It is more than apparent that as life forms become more complex and reproduction options increase, diversity increase and there are more opportunities for survival of life forms. The main advantage of sexual reproduction is the increase in the genetic diversity, and the increase in the options for survival. Survival of life is apparent in the opportunistic diversity of the evolution of life at all levels.

[wattsr1]

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?

That's a very hard question to answer in the context of an ID.

Sure, from the POV of a human designer, something that looks as if it was designed by a human. However, even then it can get tricky. I could be walking along and see a random scattering of leaves on the footpath and conclude that the wind blew them there. However, it might in fact be so that a human put them there. Pulled them off the tree and lay them in what looked to be a random scattering, for what ever reason I simply cannot discern (the human might have been doing something like a doodle, and how would I know, unless I saw it happening.)

It's the problem with an ID in the context of something like a universe. We simply don't know the rules by which such an ID works to be able to say "That looks as if it was ID designed. That does not look at if it was ID designed."

When it comes to an ID of the universe, I don't see evidence for one. What I see is that the universe is full of mystery. There are a gadzillion questions, the answers to which are dimly perceived or utterly unknown. Behind them might be an ID. But then maybe not.

That there is an ID (God), is largely a question of faith, I think. People either look at the universe and think "Well it just must be because of the ID" or they don't.

[seer]

Again, you need to have a scope for your argument. "Bacteria" encompasses an entire domain of organisms. Within that domain are separate phyla, classes, orders, familes, genera and species. So we're not talking about some nebulous idea of "bacteria." We're talking about specific populations accumulating mutations that, over an incredibly long period of time, would result in sexual reproductive systems.

I mentioned two of the big benefits that bacteria would gain from sexual reproduction. Rather than asking me for them again, why not respond to what I wrote above regarding sexual recombination and Muller's Ratchet?

No Sam, this is a cop out. We know that bacteria have remained essentially the same over millions of years (save minor changes). Didn’t they just find live bacteria that was about 86 million years old? Sam, if the name of the game is survivability what benefit would sexual reproduction grant over the ability they have to survive now? How would sexual reproduction cause them to adapt better than they already have?

And I have to note that, again, you are not looking at this properly; you say that asexual organisms are "doing just fine" as they are . . . but this ignores the fact that there are so very many organisms that reproduce sexually! If evolutionary theory is accurate, there was a time when there were no sexually-reproducing organisms. The fact that we find so many organisms reproducing sexually today, then, indicates that some populations did survive better by reproducing sexually. Which returns to my earlier point. If you can't grasp relatively simple distinctions between an individual and a population, you're not going to do well trying to imagine entire species containing many populations, entire genera containing many species, entire families containing many genera, and so on. You're getting tripped up now because you are conflating specific populations over long periods of time with entire domains reproducing over incredibly short periods of time. This tangent isn't helpful in evaluating your OP.

Of course one wonders if the early cell life acted like present day bacteria why it ever turned into anything else, for what reason, surely not because of survival? I mean bacteria has remained quite stable for, perhaps, billions of years.

[seer]

That's a very hard question to answer in the context of an ID.

Sure, from the POV of a human designer, something that looks as if it was designed by a human. However, even then it can get tricky. I could be walking along and see a random scattering of leaves on the footpath and conclude that the wind blew them there. However, it might in fact be so that a human put them there. Pulled them off the tree and lay them in what looked to be a random scattering, for what ever reason I simply cannot discern (the human might have been doing something like a doodle, and how would I know, unless I saw it happening.)

It's the problem with an ID in the context of something like a universe. We simply don't know the rules by which such an ID works to be able to say "That looks as if it was ID designed. That does not look at if it was ID designed."

When it comes to an ID of the universe, I don't see evidence for one. What I see is that the universe is full of mystery. There are a gadzillion questions, the answers to which are dimly perceived or utterly unknown. Behind them might be an ID. But then maybe not.

That there is an ID (God), is largely a question of faith, I think. People either look at the universe and think "Well it just must be because of the ID" or they don't.

Ok, look at this way. With all our effort, intelligence and technology we have not yet been able to create a simple or primitive living cell. If we can’t do it with all this ability and effort why would one think that the non-intelligent, random forces of nature could create such a living cell or cells? From where do you get your confidence?

[Ansgar Seraph]

No Sam, this is a cop out. We know that bacteria have remained essentially the same over millions of years (save minor changes). Didn’t they just find live bacteria that was about 86 million years old? Sam, if the name of the game is survivability what benefit would sexual reproduction grant over the ability they have to survive now? How would sexual reproduction cause them to adapt better than they already have?

No, bacteria have not remained essentially the same over millions of years. There may be strains of bacteria that have remained relatively unchanged but, again, you're confusing a species with an entire domain of life. And before you ask again about how sexual reproduction confers a selective advantage, please at least demonstrate some knowledge of what I've specifically referred to: what is sexual recombination and Muller's Ratchet? Also, asking what benefit sexual reproduction would have for extant bacteria isn't germane to this tangent. The question isn't "What benefit exists for these bacteria now?" The question is, "What benefit would sexual reproduction have among populations of asexual reproducers?" It may very well be the case that no extant bacteria will ever be an ancestor to a sexually reproducing population. Evolution doesn't have goals and most energy niches are already occupied by other organisms. But you're still approaching evolutionary questions from a very limited time frame.

Of course one wonders if the early cell life acted like present day bacteria why it ever turned into anything else, for what reason, surely not because of survival? I mean bacteria has remained quite stable for, perhaps, billions of years.

They have not and you are again demonstrating my point. You can't distinguish between a species of organisms and a domain of organisms. You're not going to be able to understand evolutionary theory, let alone a specific portion of evolutionary theory, if you can't make that distinction. And it's a waste of others' time if you don't really try to backtrack to the point where you can grasp this. It would be much better, therefore, to go back to the OP's topic and really understand the difference between an individual human, a population of humans and how those two groups relate to the classification of species.

—Sam

[phank]

Ok, look at this way. With all our effort, intelligence and technology we have not yet been able to create a simple or primitive living cell. If we can’t do it with all this ability and effort why would one think that the non-intelligent, random forces of nature could create such a living cell or cells? From where do you get your confidence?

I suppose one could point to the entire weight of all known biological evidence, but if we have no confidence in evidence, in observation, in related testing, etc. then all of this evidence means little. And furthermore, if we think that because people design things all things must be designed the way (super)humans could do it, then of course that's what we'll have confidence in. And because no human designs anything without some purpose in mind, everything in nature must have been desgined for a purpose IF it was designed by a (super)human with human-type motivations. And since humans didn't do it, something LIKE a human must have done it. And if we choose, we can have confidence in that as well.

So we have a tension here between what is most likely in terms of the sheer weight of evidence, and what is most likely in terms of human motivations and activities projected onto the evidence. I don't see any good way to resolve this tension. EVEN IF humans are eventually able to demonstrate that the ordinary processes of chemistry and physics could get life booted, this demonstration could do no better than fall into the "entire weight of all known biological evidence", in which we had no confidence to begin with.

[seer]

No, bacteria have not remained essentially the same over millions of years. There may be strains of bacteria that have remained relatively unchanged but, again, you're confusing a species with an entire domain of life. And before you ask again about how sexual reproduction confers a selective advantage, please at least demonstrate some knowledge of what I've specifically referred to: what is sexual recombination and Muller's Ratchet? Also, asking what benefit sexual reproduction would have for extant bacteria isn't germane to this tangent. The question isn't "What benefit exists for these bacteria now?" The question is, "What benefit would sexual reproduction have among populations of asexual reproducers?" It may very well be the case that no extant bacteria will ever be an ancestor to a sexually reproducing population. Evolution doesn't have goals and most energy niches are already occupied by other organisms. But you're still approaching evolutionary questions from a very limited time frame.

No Sam, the question is very relevant since what we really know about the evolution of bacteria we know by studying present day forms. And as far as I can tell sexual reproduction would not offer any advantage for said present day forms concerning survivability. Now you suggest that somewhere in the very distant, unobservable past, sexual reproduction did in fact offer advantage to these early bacterium. But how is this not mere speculation? Certainly it can not be demonstrated with the strains we have today. That the bacteria of that time was so different that sexual reproduction would have helped them survive better. One wonders how they did so well all those millions of years with out sexual reproduction.

[Ansgar Seraph]

No Sam, the question is very relevant since what we really know about the evolution of bacteria we know by studying present day forms. And as far as I can tell sexual reproduction would not offer any advantage for said present day forms concerning survivability. Now you suggest that somewhere in the very distant, unobservable past, sexual reproduction did in fact offer advantage to these early bacterium. But how is this not mere speculation? Certainly it can not be demonstrated with the strains we have today. That the bacteria of that time was so different that sexual reproduction would have helped them survive better. One wonders how they did so well all those millions of years with out sexual reproduction.

So if you think that it's just speculation and I can't bother trying to explain something complex when you haven't taken in something basic, how about we get back to the OP and start from there? I didn't bring up "the distant, unobservable past:" I've repeatedly tried to steer the conversation back to more recent and more concrete territory.

—Sam

[shunyadragon]

No Sam, this is a cop out. We know that bacteria have remained essentially the same over millions of years (save minor changes). Didn’t they just find live bacteria that was about 86 million years old? Sam, if the name of the game is survivability what benefit would sexual reproduction grant over the ability they have to survive now? How would sexual reproduction cause them to adapt better than they already have?



Of course one wonders if the early cell life acted like present day bacteria why it ever turned into anything else, for what reason, surely not because of survival? I mean bacteria has remained quite stable for, perhaps, billions of years.

Please, do your home work, bacteria have evolved into more complex bacterias like cyanobacterias that use photosynesis, and others. Bacteria have evolved to more complex bacteria showing primitive plant and animal characteristics. They have not remained just plain old bacteria.

Home work, start here . . .

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/ic...0Evolution.pdf