Then RM & NS Created Them Male And Female

[seer]

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

Really Sam, are you suggesting that it is more than speculation or that speculation is valid way to do science? But let's use more recent and concrete territory then. Are there any bacteria today that need a partner to reproduce? Or perhaps you could just admit that we don't have a clue.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Ok, let's use recent and more concrete territory then. Are there any bacteria today that need a partner to reproduce?

Now you're just trying to pull my chain, right?

[seer]

Now you're just trying to pull my chain, right?

Not at all. See Sam, I don't believe that there is a lick of evidence that bacteria would survive better than they already are by throwing sexual reproduction into the mix. And I don't believe there is a lick of evidence that sexual reproduction would have conferred advantage to the ancient bacteria any more than it would today.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Not at all. See Sam, I don't believe that there is a lick of evidence that bacteria would survive better than they already are by throwing sexual reproduction into the mix. And I don't believe there is a lick of evidence that sexual reproduction would have conferred advantage to the ancient bacteria any more than it would today.

And I don't particularly care to try and explain it to you, which is why I recommended going back to the OP and discussing how sexually active individuals in population can create new species. Why you're still on about bacteria, I don't know. We can discuss something concrete and unambiguous and you can probably learn the difference between individuals, populations and species. But you still haven't demonstrated any knowledge of sexual recombination or Muller's Ratchet so why should I waste time talking about bacteria and the origin of sexual reproduction?

—Sam

[wattsr1]

Not at all. See Sam, I don't believe that there is a lick of evidence that bacteria would survive better than they already are by throwing sexual reproduction into the mix. And I don't believe there is a lick of evidence that sexual reproduction would have conferred advantage to the ancient bacteria any more than it would today.

So don't you believe that the experiments mentioned in this review:-

http://personales.upv.es/sfelena/Nat...netics%202.pdf

- were ever done?

And hence, given that you believe they were never done, then there is no evidence that sex would provide any advantage?

[shunyadragon]

Not at all. See Sam, I don't believe that there is a lick of evidence that bacteria would survive better than they already are by throwing sexual reproduction into the mix. And I don't believe there is a lick of evidence that sexual reproduction would have conferred advantage to the ancient bacteria any more than it would today.

I like this your view does not have a lick of science. All I see is,I believe , , ,, I don't believe , , ,, I don't believe, I don't believe, I don't believe.

[USIncognito]

(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.

Half a wing...

Of course sexual reproduction is found in plants so it predates the plant/animal split about 1.5 billion years ago. And apparently Dr. $2595 is unfamiliar with vertebrate reproduction methods --- other than mammals.

(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?

Half a wing and Socrates isn't green.

(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?

Ah, the old how did the useless human male penis continue to evolve if they couldn't mate with human females until they evolved a vagina gambit.

Did Dr. 's studies never cover human anatomy and development or embryology?

[seer]

So don't you believe that the experiments mentioned in this review:-

http://personales.upv.es/sfelena/Nat...netics%202.pdf

- were ever done?

And hence, given that you believe they were never done, then there is no evidence that sex would provide any advantage?

That was not the point. I'm not denying that sexual reproduction could, possibly, in some cases, offer advantage. I'm asking how would it enhance the survivability of creatures like bacteria that are, already, one of the best survivors in nature. I see no rational reason to conclude that if they had to now find a partner to reproduce that that would help them to survive better than they already do. And I have no good reason to assume that sexual reproduction would have offered survival advantage to ancient bacteria any more that it would offer advantage to present day bacteria.

[seer]

And I don't particularly care to try and explain it to you, which is why I recommended going back to the OP and discussing how sexually active individuals in population can create new species.

—Sam

But Sam, that was not what the OP was about. That was about how lucky this all was. How fortunate it was that random mutations created complementary and corresponding reproductive systems. And to be honest Sam, I find it no less magical than when we started this thread. I guess we have to just take it by faith.

[shunyadragon]

That was not the point. I'm not denying that sexual reproduction could, possibly, in some cases, offer advantage. I'm asking how would it enhance the survivability of creatures like bacteria that are, already, one of the best survivors in nature. I see no rational reason to conclude that if they had to now find a partner to reproduce that that would help them to survive better than they already do. And I have no good reason to assume that sexual reproduction would have offered survival advantage to ancient bacteria any more that it would offer advantage to present day bacteria.

That is not fortunately the point of evolution. Evolution does not take place deliberately with the need to enhance the survivability of the species involved. Evolution is the process of change for all life including bacteria. The evolution of aecheabacteria to cyanobacteria did not come about because of the deliberate need of the archeabacteria to survive. The genetic diversity created by the genetic replication is the foundation for change and adaptation. Change and adaptation is the root of evolution and will take place in all life, and lead to more variation of adaptability to more environment.

[seer]

That is not fortunately the point of evolution. Evolution does not take place deliberately with the need to enhance the survivability of the species involved.

No duh! But you only have three possible outcomes with change. One, it makes no different as respect to survivability. Two, it actually undermines survivability, which possibly could cause the loss of the species, or three, it enhances survivability. And again, I see no logical reason why sexual reproduction would enhance survivability of bacteria. As a matter of fact it would make reproduction much more difficult, with no up side for survival.

[Carrikature]

But Sam, that was not what the OP was about. That was about how lucky this all was. How fortunate it was that random mutations created complementary and corresponding reproductive systems. And to be honest Sam, I find it no less magical than when we started this thread. I guess we have to just take it by faith.

Yeah...it's amazing how magical and lucky everything is when you don't have the foggiest idea how any of it works.

[magellan004]

So don't you believe that the experiments mentioned in this review:-

http://personales.upv.es/sfelena/Nat...netics%202.pdf

- were ever done?

And hence, given that you believe they were never done, then there is no evidence that sex would provide any advantage?

Lazy boy.
Read what Seer wrote. If you are going to post a garbage link then at least outline first then link- Sawyer's Rule. It's obvious to us all why you didn't precis that article.

Magellan

[magellan004]

That is not fortunately the point of evolution. Evolution does not take place deliberately with the need to enhance the survivability of the species involved. Evolution is the process of change for all life including bacteria. The evolution of aecheabacteria to cyanobacteria did not come about because of the deliberate need of the archeabacteria to survive. The genetic diversity created by the genetic replication is the foundation for change and adaptation. Change and adaptation is the root of evolution and will take place in all life, and lead to more variation of adaptability to more environment.

Ahh ; I see now how Shunny's Baha'i faith evolved - out of a garbled matmos.

Magellan

[seer]

Yeah...it's amazing how magical and lucky everything is when you don't have the foggiest idea how any of it works.

Of course - that must be it! It couldn't be that the idea is just fantastic, no, no, we will not entertain that possibility...