Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

I'm sure mods can always delete threads that are spam. Or lock them and put them in a special spam forum. They can even move troll/bait-argument starting threads there.

However, if you're afraid of a theist blowing up your belief system because of it's frailty ...I suggest you reevaluate your belief system as opposed to playing thought police and thread censor.

This thread topic is legit. And it's a major threat to evolution. In fact, it could prove to be the sinking of the whole ship.

Its not. Your entire 5 or so paragraphs are just hand-waving. It doesn't threaten evolution at all. You are just restating "god of the gaps" arguments.

[Choobus]

It's funny how these godidiots trot out the same tired old arguments like they were the result of a brilliant insight. Atheists do it as well sometimes when arguing about religion, but usually its when they are in their early teens, an age at which almost everyone is a bit of a twat. Godidiots just never seem to grow out of that phase.

[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.

[Tenspace]

Choobus wrote

It's funny how these godidiots trot out the same tired old arguments like they were the result of a brilliant insight. Atheists do it as well sometimes when arguing about religion, but usually its when they are in their early teens, an age at which almost everyone is a bit of a twat. Godidiots just never seem to grow out of that phase.

It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

Mog wrote

Its not. Your entire 5 or so paragraphs are just hand-waving. It doesn't threaten evolution at all. You are just restating "god of the gaps" arguments.

Oh, no my friend. It's the "Scientist of the Gaps" all the way. There is not one single shred of scientific evidence. Only speculative opinion and conjecture of the unknown.

I'll requote the opening statement of the Wiki:
"The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

Now, you feel free to find and point me to a research paper that refutes that statement. I'll read every single word of it and report back.

[Choobus]

Tenspace wrote

It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

And of course they are taught that to doubt is sinful and an insult to god, whereas blind faith praises his glory and is worth 100 wank points extra when you get to heaven.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

Oh, no my friend. It's the "Scientist of the Gaps" all the way. There is not one single shred of scientific evidence. Only speculative opinion and conjecture of the unknown.

I'll requote the opening statement of the Wiki:
"The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

Now, you feel free to find and point me to a research paper that refutes that statement. I'll read every single word of it and report back.

Its a puzzle, thats all you state. Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

Just because you don't know how the pyramids were built does not mean that God built them.

Tenspace wrote

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?

Not at all. As long as we agree that it's nothing more than "non-empirical collections of scientific thought". The moment some young over-enthusiastic atheist begins holding it up as evidence and proof I've got an issue to settle.

Tenspace wrote

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

Do a post search on calpurnpiso to get started.

Tenspace wrote

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.

There's lots of different kinds of evidence. We all observe the same writings, artifacts, events, phenomenon, processes, principles, etc. Much of it is cut and dry obvious facts that we can agree on and don't really represent any legitimate argument or controversy.

However, the vast majority is subject to the problem of accurate interpretation which can be difficult to say the least. You have to admit, scientists often disagree even with peer reviewed lab results. Just because an explanation sounds plausible and gains consensus doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate or factual. Therefore to become dogmatic over a "collection of scientific thoughts" is quite a different situation from, say for example, relativity which can be observed, tested, measured, repeated in lab and nature.

Tenspace wrote

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!

Again, I don't have a problem with that. But lets be realistic. If we could compile all the "scientific opinion" throughout history that now now resides in the garbage heap, how would that compare to what still holds water? Ask Edison how many ways he learned NOT to make an incandescent lamp.

Tenspace wrote

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.

I'm no genetic biologist. I'll leave the terms to you.

Tenspace wrote

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.

No doubt there are vast differences between the sexes that make sense in regards to reproduction. I wouldn't expect to find anything different in created beings.

Tenspace wrote

Good for you.

Funny. So all these mutations that are supposedly beneficial to survival of a species can be allegedly explained if they need explaining to further the theory. However, it appears that we're observing many cases of genetic degeneration among a variety of species. That doesn't really make much sense for a reproduction scheme that "developed with the intention of providing benefit" to a species, now does it?

As I pointed out...Single cell organisms STILL exist in a variety of forms and seem to be built for longevity. We haven't observed any evidence of a need for male/female amoebas.

Tenspace wrote

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.

Oh, I'll admit I couldn't identify a prokaryotic revolution if it surround my nation with canons and muskets. All I know is? For a sex mutation to take place it in evolution it would take a long long time AND the species would have to continue reproducing asexually until the sex mutation was complete and functioning.

Tenspace wrote

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.

You seem reasonable when it comes to evidence. I'm not saying YOU dream them up. But somehow "a collection of scientific thought" comes about. Now, I've got nothing against brain storming and abstract thinking or problem solving. I just want to keep the cloud of speculation separated from scientific "evidence and facts" that some like to put forth. That's really all.

Tenspace wrote

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.

I don't have any doubt or question about variation of species who breed, crossbreed, inbreed and adapt, change, and adjust in response to a whole host of variables over thousands of years. There's lots of different types of birds, butterflies, flowers, fish, etc. However, that's pretty much it.

Then again snails, ferns, mollusks, claims and fruit flies all seem to be hearty long surviving species with little need for change. I imagine there's plenty more doing just fine.

Mog wrote

Its a puzzle, thats all you state. Unexplained does not mean inexplicable.

If it's currently unexplained it can only be filled with speculation or honest admittance. You seem to be defending gaps of knowledge and the putty and duct tape used to hold it together.

So be honest. IF the Theory of Evolution is dependent upon all phylum and species originating from asexual single cell organisms, then isn't the discovery of exactly HOW sexual reproduction came into existence an important issue? Wouldn't you demand observation, transitional fossils, or other hard evidence? I mean really, just to offer some hypothetical explanation just isn't going to do here.

Or will you dust it under the rug with the origin of energy, matter, and life? And of course, your non-position concerning the core of the sun.

Choobus wrote

And of course they are taught that to doubt is sinful and an insult to god, whereas blind faith praises his glory and is worth 100 wank points extra when you get to heaven.

I know you're anxious to talk about your obsession with God. However, this is a science thread. Please stay on topic and visit my "Atheists are Obsessed With God" thread to continue denying what you already know to be true.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

I know you're anxious to talk about your obsession with God. However, this is a science thread. Please stay on topic and visit my "Atheists are Obsessed With God" thread to continue denying what you already know to be true.

Don't you mean obsession with religion? Or obsession with the delusion of god, or obession with people obsessed with the idea of god?

I mean if you want to be snarky, at least be accurate about it.

Tenspace wrote

It stems from their inversion of understanding. They start with a belief, then apply facts as they see fit to make their position true.

I agree, The Theory of EvolutionTM has become the frame which every explanation MUST fit within. The premise CANNOT be challenged or questioned; only supported.

Otherwise, you could get pooh-poohed right out of a career. Blackballed even.

Mog wrote

Don't you mean obsession with religion? Or obsession with the delusion of god, or obession with people obsessed with the idea of god?

I mean if you want to be snarky, at least be accurate about it.

Oh no...it's God alright. You're not an areligionist.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

If it's currently unexplained it can only be filled with speculation or honest admittance. You seem to be defending gaps of knowledge and the putty and duct tape used to hold it together.

So be honest. IF the Theory of Evolution is dependent upon all phylum and species originating from asexual single cell organisms, then isn't the discovery of exactly HOW sexual reproduction came into existence an important issue? Wouldn't you demand observation, transitional fossils, or other hard evidence? I mean really, just to offer some hypothetical explanation just isn't going to do here.

Or will you dust it under the rug with the origin of energy, matter, and life? And of course, your non-position concerning the core of the sun.

I don't see any putty or duct tape. Thats all I see when I see your beliefs. Every question starts with an educated speculation, a.k.a. hypothesis. We examine it, see where it goes wrong and construct a new hypothesis. If we can test this hypothesis thoroughly, it becomes a theory.

We haven't dusted anything under the rug.

And I definitely do have a position concerning the core of the sun. I find it amusing though, that you keep asking begging me to give an answer rather than try to find it for yourself. For someone who supposedly has an interest in science, that's revealingly unscientific.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

Oh no...it's God alright. You're not an areligionist.

Nope, cause we don't have an obsession with something that doesn't exist. I think the closest you can come to any accuracy on the matter is "obsession with the concept of god"