[Tenspace]

Missionary wrote

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.

And a group of such opinions, backed by the collective evidence of generations of people who devoted their lives to such study, lends credence to those explanations, allowing them to become ensconced in the the body of scientific knowledge as a theory. Just because you can't test it and replicate it doesn't make it any less of an effort. Are you saying that all non-empirical collections of scientific thought are irrelevant because no one was there to test and replicate the event?

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.

Smells like fresh straw, to me. You sure that's even a stated position?

Whatever makes you feel superior.

Dressing up in a nun's habit (preferably an assless one), then directing traffic on Main St in a small Alabama town makes me feel superior. Calling you Missy is just my way of avoiding the unreasonable urge to type 'position' after your nom de guerre.

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.

So, you are one of the "no one was there, therefore we can never understand it" camp. Do you also discount the fossil record, plate tectonics, and the birth of Jesus? Afterall, no one was there to observe any of those events.

Furthermore, an 'educated opinion', is the foundation of the scientific community - kinda like that little brown paper wrapper that holds your Reese Cup. It was just an 'educated opinion' that drove Fermi, Pauli, and other proponents of the quantum theory. Hell, exclusion was just a principle, not a fact!

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.

Then use the proper terminology, please. When referring to the origins of the separation of diploids into two distinct sexes, call it sex. If you're discussing whether He said or She said, call them genders.

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.

I suggest you read a bit deeper than the wikipedia.org page. You'll find great references at pbs.org, indiana.edu, and nih.gov. The RQ hypothesis, as you mentioned, didn't even begin to discuss sex; and Darwin knew nothing of genetics, either. My point is that as the hypothesis gained an audience, it was applied to other evolutionary subjects, and goes quite a long way in explaining oddities, such as the human female's immune system reaction to testosterone, and the fact that the placental sac is genetically encoded in males only, on the y chromosome.

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.

Good for you.

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.

Argh. Who said anything about convergence? That last paragraph really lays open to all your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory. It's a mutation that lies at the base of the prokaryotic revolution. It appears that subsequent asexual reproduction in non-protists is the exception.

Obviously male/female exists and reproduction happens. So, of course we know it's here.



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.

Well, you tell me what I was thinking, then. Those here who know me would state that I'm not the type to dream up gap-filling stories. I rip people for not citing their sources, and I'm the uber-skeptic when it comes to unfounded conjecture.

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.

The evidence is all around you. All lifeforms are transitional. Just pick your poison, and study what lies within. Neotony? Convergent evolution? Sexual dimorphism? There are stages of life all over the globe that provide strong empirical support to any of these theories.