Quote:
Tenspace wrote
No observable, testable, measurable, repeatable evidence exists to explaining how stars are formed, but that doesn't stop Science from studying the subject and presenting various hypotheses which attempt to explain the phenomenon. By default, processes that take millions of years - like evolution, star formation, and fossilization - are untestable in the short timescale of a single human's existence. Funny how folks think that if no one was there to record an event, it could never have happened.
|
Now, I don't have a problem with that as long as we identify it as hypothetical explanations. And no, it's not a matter of "it didn't happen" and you know it. The problem is that some people take those speculative hypothesis and run with them like they're facts. They aren't facts and they aren't even factual explanations. They're opinions of possible mechanisms and events that may have SOME bearing to the actual event and how it happened OR may be completely inaccurate.
What many atheists will do is CLAIM "I rely upon peer reviewed EVIDENCE and FACTS!!" then out of the other side of their mouths claim "Abiogenesis EXPLAINS it ALL!!" which of course is
faith and belief in hypothetical scientific explanations; not science and the scientific method.
Other atheists who know better don't correct these folks thus perpetuating untruths and acting intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
So, Missy (you don't mind if I call you Missy, do you?),
|
Whatever makes you feel superior.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
let's take a look at your statement, and compare it to what the scientific community has to say about sexual reproduction.
|
What the scientific community "has to say" really doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually observing, testing, collecting data, etc. They may put forth an educated opinion, but lets not fool ourselves, it's opinion, speculation, and conjecture. It's an educated guess and nothing more.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
First, drop the word, Gender - it is irrelevant here. Sex is what we're talking about. Gender primarily refers to the linguistics of referencing the classes of nouns. Sex is how we classify biological organisms, and it's what we do to make new organisms. We don't have gender to make babies, though we refer to said babies in gender, as He or She.
|
The act of sex and the gender of sex are separate yet interrelated subjects. You have to have male and female sexes to 'have sex' and reproduce. We see this in plants, animals, insects, and humans.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
So, how did life go from fucking itself to fucking a mate? Let's discuss:
Up until about twenty years ago, the two primary competing hypotheses for the reason behind sexual reproduction were Deleterious Mutation, and the Red Queen hypothesis. DM's prime reasoning was that sexual exists to purge a species of damaging genetic mutations.(1) Basically, it goes like this: an asexual organism produces a clone. The clone will carry two copies, or alleles, of a mutation. If the organism dies, then the mutation dies with it. Sexual reproduction allows mutations to continue throughout the organism's gene pool's history. Most mutations are harmful, and the organisms carrying those harmful/lethal mutations won't generate viable offspring, whereas neutral or beneficial mutations will be passed on to future offspring, allowing for a more diverse genetic pool. This explains a benefit of sex, but does not penetrate the subject completely, pulling out before a valid origins hypothesis can be fertilized.
The Red Queen hypothesis, first proposed by Leigh Van Valen(2), states, very simply, that sex evolved in order to fight disease. Host species can fight off diseases by evolving new genetic defenses against the attacking organisms. That doesn't sound like much of a big deal, until you realize that all those non-deleterious mutations are carried by the organism's offspring, which leads to greater variability in future generations. This hypothesis goes much further in presenting a methodology for the split from asexual to sexual reproduction.
To summarize, sexual reproduction is more adept at providing mechanisms to combat disease, whereas asexual reproduction is advantageous where populations of organisms don't face external threats from parasites.
Now, let's talk about the origin of sexual reproduction vs asexual reproduction. All eukaryotes produce sexually, whereas most prokaryotes produces asexually. Biology is in general agreement that the split from protists was heralded by sexual reproduction. And here we are, partially in agreement with your statement: was it Viral Eukaryogenesis, or cannibalism/recombination, or viral fusion?
|
According to the Wiki, The Red Queen hypothesis simply attempts to
"explain the advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the constant evolutionary arms race between competing species" AND as an
"explanatory tangent to his proposed Law of Extinction". It further states that
"...a direct test of the hypothesis remains elusive, particularly at the macroevolutionary level" AND "Discussions of sex and reproduction were not part of Van Valen's Red Queen's Hypothesis"
So, it does not offer or propose any mechanism by which asexual organisms began an evolutionary process of mutation over millions of years mutating into separate male/female sexes of the species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex state the following,
"The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology. Many groups of organisms, notably the majority of animals and plants, reproduce sexually. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."
While there are plenty of explanations available for benefits which obviously can be observed theres a problem with genetic deficiencies and mutations degenerating and weakening the species as opposed to strengthening any given species.
Single cell organisms still exist today in a variety of forms, remained asexual, remained healthy, have a plentiful food source, hospitable environment and really have shown no need to mutate into anything else much less mutate into separate male/female sexes and reproduce in some new complicated egg-sperm-seed-pistol-pollination schemes.
Regardless of the "benefit" hypothesis and theories, the mechanisms ivolved are almost silent except for Viral Eukaryogenesis and Neomuran Revolution. Now, the Neomuran Revolution theory proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith is interesting because he dismisses other scientific opinion based on what he refers to as " “theoretically and empirically” unsound model of molecular clocks"...hahaha. I agree with that.
So essentially, science so far has failed to come up with anything more than a model and speculative opinionated conjecture to explain the simultaneous mutations of a variety of species over millions of years into male/female sexes WHILE STILL reproducing asexually AS THEY mutated into opposite sexes. You have to admit, that's an difficult mutation to explain away.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
We don't know exactly the original event that occurred which created sexual reproduction - but we do know that it happened, approximately when it happened, and in what organisms it could have happened.
|
Obviously male/female exists and reproduction happens. So, of course we know it's here.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
This does not detract from evolution, biology, or your last orgasm. It is simply a case of, "we don't know yet, but one day, if we continue to enhance evolutionary theory, we'll find out."
|
Now that's hopeful; dare I say faith.
"enhance evolutionary theory"?? That's an interesting phrase. I suspect (and hope) you mean 'find evidence to support' as opposed to dream up a new story to fill the gap of missing knowledge.
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Just like the origin of the universe, or prokaryotic life, or the godhead in any of three thousand religions, we may not be able to explain the origin to the last detail, but that does not deter us from understanding and contemplating the results we see around us today.
So yes, you're right - we don't have an answer to the origin of sex, but we know it exists, we know it is beneficial for diploid organisms, and we understand enough about it to postulate its origins. And we certainly know that we would never, ever participate in the act with Paris Hilton, for fear of acquiring those really, really deleterious pathogens she carries in her cooch, a walking, talking petri dish of unimaginable horror.
(1) A. Kondrashov, 1988, Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336: 435-440
(2) L. Van Valen, 1973, A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1:1-30.
|
Again...of course we know it exists. I'll disagree with your position that it doesn't threaten or detract from the Theory of Evolution because it's critical to science in proving that all life originates from common ancestry and single cells.
Again...The species has to originate as asexual, that it is
purposely mutating towards a new beneficial reproduction scheme, over millions of years, while reproducing asexually the entire time. Until that one special day...bam, sex. I don't know there...that's a very tall mutation order. Very, very tall mechanism. Lots of species involved.
A model and hypothesis isn't going to be sufficient here. We'll need an observation somehow. Otherwise, it cannot just be skipped over or pushed aside to claim the Theory of Evo to be fact. It HAS to be answered with hard evidence.