Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained

[Tenspace]

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.

Ah, yes, but sadly, the diddling priests often use up those wank points prior to the faithful's demise.

Mog wrote

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.

Oh, there's putty and duct tape. There's even bosonic glue. For bosons.

Mog wrote

We haven't dusted anything under the rug.

Then answer the question:

"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."

Mog wrote

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.

I've learned plenty. I want to hear your position from you.

[Tenspace]

Missionary wrote

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.

Well, it is evidence, and there is proof, and I'm probably older than you, and yes, I'm enthusastic about evolution; my atheism has nothing to do with my love of science; since you don't know, I was a Jew for 38 years before giving it up ten years ago. So, what is a theory, but a collection of scientific thought? Whether a discipline is empirical or inferred through study is irrelevant; otherwise, you're calling bullshit on everything from climatology to geology.

Do a post search on calpurnpiso to get started.

Cal, I love you dearly, dude, but I would never look to you as a standard-bearer of scientific knowledge. Missy, you should learn to qualify the information you receive with regard to the provider and their level of education in the subject at hand. Cal's expertise isn't evolution or the scientific method. He's the first person I'd go to, however, for issues regarding Jesus, Julius, and lost arts.

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.

And all the writings come from one book - not very objective. And every single artifact, from the Shroud to the Ossuary has been proven bogus. There is no empirical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was a supernatural being, a messiah, or a god. But that's a topic for another thread, so let's get back to evolution.

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.

Again, you dismiss a whole branch of science as inaccurate and non-factual. Geology, Cosmology, and a wealth of biological sciences are untestable in a lab. Yes, certain aspects are testable (neutrino detection from cosmic ray bombardment, for example), but that also applies to evolution. Read up on mathematical models of kin relations for starters. These are things that can be tested in a lab. And what about Lenski's e. coli that evolved to absorb citrates?

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.

Realize that the garbage heap is what the current theories stand on. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian gravity, it supplemented it, like Darwin supplemented Mendel's work. Umm.. invention is way different than theoretical work. Edison was prescient in using tungsten, wouldn't you say? It has nothing to to with electromagnetic theory; he was more of a materials scientist.

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

Nor am I. It would be more appropriate to state that you aren't a stickler for language, since gender is unrelated - I'm just trying to help some of our gentle readers understand that we're talking about sex, not gender as you stated in your thread title.

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.

And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation. Tell me, why would a Creator give the male the genes for creating a placenta? Why would a Creator trigger a female's immune system to suppress testosterone expression in a developing fetus? It's the search for answers to questions like these that lead to discovery and progress. If you already have all the answers, then what do you care?

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.

All I wrote was "Good for you" - a lot of inference on your part that I would even consider reverse logic to apply explanations to mutations. All mutations have an explanation; it is disingenuous to assume that an explanation is only valid if it fits the overarching belief of the presenter. That's opposite of what I've been saying.

If you even attempted to understand the Red Queen hypothesis, you would retract that statement - it clearly states that in absence of parasites, asexual reproduction rules; whereas in more complex organisms, sexual reproduction gets it done. Here, let me refer you to yet another scientific article on evolution that you probably won't read. It's clearly stated in many texts that the RQ hypothesis is a great example of coevolution. I'll quote most of the article, as you did with wikipedia, to get my point across lazily:

Red Queen Hypothesis.--The "Red Queen" hypothesis is used to describe two similar ideas, which are both based on coevolution. The original idea is that coevolution could lead to situations for which the probability of extinction is relatively constant over millions of years (Van Valen 1973). The gist of the idea is that, in tightly coevolved interactions, evolutionary change by one species (e.g., a prey or host) could lead to extinction of other species (e.g. a predator or parasite), and that the probability of such changes might be reasonably independent of species age. Van Valen named the idea "the Red Queen hypothesis," because, under this view, species had to "run" (evolve) in order to stay in the same place (extant).

The other idea is that coevolution, particularly between hosts and parasites, could lead to sustained oscillations in genotype frequencies. In species where asexual reproduction is possible (as in many plants and invertebrates), coevolutionary interactions with parasites may select for sexual reproduction in hosts as a way to reduce the risk of infection in offspring. There have been many important contributors to the Red Queen hypothesis as it applies to sex. W.D. Hamilton and John Jaenike were among the earliest pioneers of the idea. - C. M. Lively, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University, discussing: Bell, G. 1982. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality.

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.

How do you know that? What references can you cite to support your claim? Why would these little microscopic organisms need millions of years (as you stated previously) to differentiate reproductive methods? You do realize that the pro- eukaryotic split happened
something like a billion years ago?

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.

I strongly agree with you here, and not just because you called me reasonable. If you devote the time and effort, and undertake a deep understanding of evolution, you would see a clear line between speculation and theory. It took me two years of daily study before I could even talk intelligently about evolution; I had to understand what I was talking about; I didn't want to simply parrot the literature that I read.

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.

So, in other words, you accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Fish begat fish, and all that. You don't accept that humans and apes descended from the same proto-ape? Or that whales evolved from land mammals? Or that dromedaries once roamed in vast numbers across North America? All these are *facts* derived from evolutionary theory, supported by plenty of evidence, both fossil-based and genetic.

[Single Serving Jack]

Tenspace wrote

And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation.

Bingo. Epic indeed and such a waste of grey matter. I'm just starting on the long road of learning more about life, genetics, evolution etc - for exactly the reason you stated, that I want to understand, not just repeat what I've read. And it's a joyful experience. Missy has already decided that science doesn't offer understanding, only guesswork and wild conjecture based on nothing. Sad.

[Riddler]

Missionary wrote

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.

The key phrase, of course, is ‘so far’. Unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure. DNA sequencing was one of science's more abject 'failures' prior to your and my adult lifetime. A generation or two ago, science had ‘failed’ to produce a machine that could replicate even the simplest calculations of which the human brain is capable. A century back, it had ‘failed’ even to cause a solid object to levitate or fly. Half a millennium before that, science (of the occidental variety at least) had ‘failed’ to establish that the earth and its neighbouring planets moved around the sun.

That last one was particularly significant, because the untapped potential for reasoned investigation gave legitimacy to a wholly uninformed supposition which was just plain wrong. The rectification opened up questions about the entire validity of supposedly divine 'truths'. So the exception to the statement, ‘unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure’ must be when progress ceases to be sought, and erroneous thought is allowed to flourish unchallenged.

So there is really no reason to despair at what scientific investigation has hitherto been able to achieve. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

[antix]

Single Serving Jack wrote

Bingo. Epic indeed and such a waste of grey matter. I'm just starting on the long road of learning more about life, genetics, evolution etc - for exactly the reason you stated, that I want to understand, not just repeat what I've read. And it's a joyful experience. Missy has already decided that science doesn't offer understanding, only guesswork and wild conjecture based on nothing. Sad.

Sadder still that he insists that since science does not make 100% absolute claims, it cannot be used as knowledge. Yet at the same time, he claims he knows with 100% absolute certainty that God not only exists, but his particular interpretation of God is the correct one. Nothing hypocritical about this fundie.

I would wager a guess that Mish is afraid of science. Afraid that by learning and continuing to learn via the scientific method (as opposed to the "let's see what the bible says" method) that his faith will be lose credibility and even dimish into obscurity.

Tenspace wrote

Well, it is evidence, and there is proof, and I'm probably older than you, and yes, I'm enthusastic about evolution; my atheism has nothing to do with my love of science; since you don't know, I was a Jew for 38 years before giving it up ten years ago. So, what is a theory, but a collection of scientific thought? Whether a discipline is empirical or inferred through study is irrelevant; otherwise, you're calling bullshit on everything from climatology to geology.

"I think" is neither evidence or proof in science. Thought precedes the scientific method but once it becomes a replacement anything goes. Newton was rigorous in testing hypothesis and so was Einstien. Dawkins can write all the books of opinion he wants but that doesn't make it science when Hitchens and Harris agree.

Tenspace wrote

And all the writings come from one book - not very objective. And every single artifact, from the Shroud to the Ossuary has been proven bogus. There is no empirical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was a supernatural being, a messiah, or a god. But that's a topic for another thread, so let's get back to evolution.

I wasn't referring to scripture or God. We're discussing science.

Tenspace wrote

Again, you dismiss a whole branch of science as inaccurate and non-factual. Geology, Cosmology, and a wealth of biological sciences are untestable in a lab. Yes, certain aspects are testable (neutrino detection from cosmic ray bombardment, for example), but that also applies to evolution. Read up on mathematical models of kin relations for starters. These are things that can be tested in a lab. And what about Lenski's e. coli that evolved to absorb citrates?

As an engineer I know one thing is for certain; math fails. It fails in application the first time, every time, either by error in equation or model, probably both. When your math equation CANNOT be applied in the lab, field, or nature, all you're holding is a failure to some extent. When your untested math/model becomes a premise, you're building a house of cards that compounds the errors and you have more of nothing.

Tenspace wrote

Realize that the garbage heap is what the current theories stand on. Relativity didn't replace Newtonian gravity, it supplemented it, like Darwin supplemented Mendel's work. Umm.. invention is way different than theoretical work. Edison was prescient in using tungsten, wouldn't you say? It has nothing to to with electromagnetic theory; he was more of a materials scientist.

Newton gravity was hardly garbage. You're talking of the parts bin, not the garbage heap. The heap is filled with failed scientific thought and experiments. The parts bin is just as full of information that nobody knows what to do with yet.

Tenspace wrote

And herein lies the root of your epic failure. You don't care about an explanation.

Unless it fits (or can be shoehorned) into the evolutionary mold.

Tenspace wrote

Tell me, why would a Creator give the male the genes for creating a placenta? Why would a Creator trigger a female's immune system to suppress testosterone expression in a developing fetus? It's the search for answers to questions like these that lead to discovery and progress. If you already have all the answers, then what do you care?

And of course, interpretation and implication of observations can only have one possible course of thought?? There's just no way another explanation can see the light of day once it's discovered and determined to fit the framework of reference, right?

You know better. For all you know humans would cease to exist without genes found in both sexes that may or may not be limited to entire sets of multipurpose instructions. The human genome may be mapped, but it's hardly understood. I'm surprised you didn't invoke vestibule organs. haha

Tenspace wrote

All I wrote was "Good for you" - a lot of inference on your part that I would even consider reverse logic to apply explanations to mutations. All mutations have an explanation; it is disingenuous to assume that an explanation is only valid if it fits the overarching belief of the presenter. That's opposite of what I've been saying.

If you even attempted to understand the Red Queen hypothesis, you would retract that statement - it clearly states that in absence of parasites, asexual reproduction rules; whereas in more complex organisms, sexual reproduction gets it done. Here, let me refer you to yet another scientific article on evolution that you probably won't read. It's clearly stated in many texts that the RQ hypothesis is a great example of coevolution. I'll quote most of the article, as you did with wikipedia, to get my point across lazily:

Red Queen Hypothesis.--The "Red Queen" hypothesis is used to describe two similar ideas, which are both based on coevolution. The original idea is that coevolution could lead to situations for which the probability of extinction is relatively constant over millions of years (Van Valen 1973). The gist of the idea is that, in tightly coevolved interactions, evolutionary change by one species (e.g., a prey or host) could lead to extinction of other species (e.g. a predator or parasite), and that the probability of such changes might be reasonably independent of species age. Van Valen named the idea "the Red Queen hypothesis," because, under this view, species had to "run" (evolve) in order to stay in the same place (extant).

The other idea is that coevolution, particularly between hosts and parasites, could lead to sustained oscillations in genotype frequencies. In species where asexual reproduction is possible (as in many plants and invertebrates), coevolutionary interactions with parasites may select for sexual reproduction in hosts as a way to reduce the risk of infection in offspring. There have been many important contributors to the Red Queen hypothesis as it applies to sex. W.D. Hamilton and John Jaenike were among the earliest pioneers of the idea. - C. M. Lively, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University, discussing: Bell, G. 1982. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality.

I agree, it's non-empirical untested scientific thought. Now, it could be considered a starting point of research for evidence. But that's not to be confused with "Oh, that's all been answered...we've moved on now. The problem was solved long ago".

Tenspace wrote

How do you know that? What references can you cite to support your claim? Why would these little microscopic organisms need millions of years (as you stated previously) to differentiate reproductive methods? You do realize that the pro- eukaryotic split happened
something like a billion years ago?

Support my claim? The claim of evolution is that minute mutations took place over invariably long periods of time (millions?) that would be visibly undetectable in real time. The CLAIM of RQ, IF the RQ theory is remotely accurate, would require a cell with written genetic code to react to parasitic attack and begin reformulating it's reproduction scheme ABOVE building a defense to the parasite while locked in a “genetics arms race” of survival against extinction.

The entire concept of mutating from simple agamogenesis to a scheme involving meiosis, formation of gametes, and fertilization (and please pardon my use of the phrase: I assume) would not be an overnight sensation. In addition, it offers a whole new set of problems for which benefit doesn't even compute in such an inefficient method of reproduction.

Mark Ridley "The Cooperative Gene"
"No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away"

Tenspace wrote

I strongly agree with you here, and not just because you called me reasonable. If you devote the time and effort, and undertake a deep understanding of evolution, you would see a clear line between speculation and theory. It took me two years of daily study before I could even talk intelligently about evolution; I had to understand what I was talking about; I didn't want to simply parrot the literature that I read.

I'll say this much...the line between speculation, hypothesis, and theory is indeed becoming increasingly blurred.

Tenspace wrote

So, in other words, you accept microevolution, but not macroevolution. Fish begat fish, and all that. You don't accept that humans and apes descended from the same proto-ape? Or that whales evolved from land mammals? Or that dromedaries once roamed in vast numbers across North America? All these are *facts* derived from evolutionary theory, supported by plenty of evidence, both fossil-based and genetic.

Microevolution is observable, testable, explainable. Whole phylum mutation and the tree or bush of life is all theory. Humans share over 50% of the fruit fly's genetic code yet an incredible abyss separates us. ..but you want me to buy into the current tree that shows humans descend from a phylogenetic split with bats and lemurs (ape-chimp/bonobo)?

No, I don't buy it.

http://tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm

Riddler wrote

The key phrase, of course, is ‘so far’.

Your faith in theories is unflappable.

Riddler wrote

Unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure. DNA sequencing was one of science's more abject 'failures' prior to your and my adult lifetime. A generation or two ago, science had ‘failed’ to produce a machine that could replicate even the simplest calculations of which the human brain is capable. A century back, it had ‘failed’ even to cause a solid object to levitate or fly. Half a millennium before that, science (of the occidental variety at least) had ‘failed’ to establish that the earth and its neighbouring planets moved around the sun.

Discovery and observation of events and phenomena IS what science is all about. Chasing rabbit holes is part of that process. Holding up a rabbit hole and claiming it's an answer is not science.

Riddler wrote

That last one was particularly significant, because the untapped potential for reasoned investigation gave legitimacy to a wholly uninformed supposition which was just plain wrong. The rectification opened up questions about the entire validity of supposedly divine 'truths'. So the exception to the statement, ‘unfulfilled potential does not equate to failure’ must be when progress ceases to be sought, and erroneous thought is allowed to flourish unchallenged.

I've never said "cease and desist". I'm all for discovery and observation. The problem I have is claiming midstream that "We've swum the English Channel!!" ...or worse, the Atlantic.

Riddler wrote

So there is really no reason to despair at what scientific investigation has hitherto been able to achieve. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Achieve? That's my problem right there. Big problem. more later...

As long as the "will" is led by the "way" and not visa versa. I suspect these days the way is led more often by the will, using putty, glue, and duct tape.

Math and models fail. If it ain't applied all youz gotz iz is certain error.

[Irreligious]

Missionary, you are not discussing science; you are trying your damnedest to discredit it, and only because you perceive it to be a threat to your theology. That couldn't be more obvious.

antix wrote

Sadder still that he insists that since science does not make 100% absolute claims, it cannot be used as knowledge.

That's not my claim. My claim is simple. If we can observe, test, measure, repeat we have something to look at. Interpretations and opinions may vary until it correlates with other data that is observed, tested, measured, repeated.

Building stories around unknowns and calling them facts of the moment to fill the gaps of the unknown is putty, glue, and duct tape...not answers to get all dogmatic about and defend.

antix wrote

Yet at the same time, he claims he knows with 100% absolute certainty that God not only exists, but his particular interpretation of God is the correct one. Nothing hypocritical about this fundie.

Hey, the evidence was dropped in my lap. There's no way I can deny it or explain it away. You haven't acknowledged the evidence you've seen...what else can I say? I know what I know with 100% certainty.

antix wrote

I would wager a guess that Mish is afraid of science. Afraid that by learning and continuing to learn via the scientific method (as opposed to the "let's see what the bible says" method) that his faith will be lose credibility and even dimish into obscurity.

You're way wrong. God created everything science discovers and observes. So, I stand in AWE of whats found. You seem to be under the impression science "achieves" something.

All science does is find stuff, look at it, talk about it, and tries to figure out how it works and where it came from.

That's not to be confused with the application of science in technology and manufacturing. Is man made stuff beneficial? Sure. It's convenient and helpful for comfort, entertainment, productivity, and even health. Those are all byproducts of science, not science. Science in and of itself is not a production mechanism for consumables.

Just so we're straight.

Irreligious wrote

Missionary, you are not discussing science; you are trying your damnedest to discredit it, and only because you perceive it to be a threat to your theology. That couldn't be more obvious.

The only threat science produces is to YOU. I could care less if geneticists force birth a blonde Swede from a monkey living in a mars colony. You are the only one in danger here.

[Kate]

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

The only threat science produces is to YOU. I could care less if geneticists force birth a blonde Swede from a monkey living in a mars colony. You are the only one in danger here.

Hateful words from a man of god here. We're just trying to lead you out of the false light that your religion promises and into true enlightenment.

[Single Serving Jack]

Missionary wrote

Hey, the evidence was dropped in my lap. There's no way I can deny it or explain it away. You haven't acknowledged the evidence you've seen...what else can I say? I know what I know with 100% certainty.

So what's the evidence then? Just because you can't explain it away doesn't mean it can't be. Just because you know with 100% certainty doesn't mean you're right. There are plenty of people who know with 100% certainty something that contradicts that which you know with 100% certainty - at least one opinion is wrong.

You're buying onto the delusion. Puffed up little mankind with a big head of knowledge replacing truth with self achievement. Pat yourself on the back.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (NKJV)

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.