Another evolutionary dilemma: sexual reproduction.

[noguru]

Whoa! :noway:

The insight of this most profound statement is just so unbelievably outstanding.

You must have studied and researched all day to put forth an enlightening post such as this.

Did you read the whole thread or are you just commenting on my one post? What profound insight do you have to offer?

 

[Poly]

Did you read the whole thread or are you just commenting on my one post?

Just peculiar that one would submit a post (your 5th one on a 3 paged thread, so far) for the sole purpose of calling somebody an idiot rather than to continue on with your great wealth of knowledge.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny,

Take a deep breath.

I know that you probably have less trouble on other forums with overwhelming the dreaded "creationists".

The only other forum I frequent (which I also own) is a science forum where creationism / ID are considered off topic.

Sorry to have to cause you inner turmoil by asking you whether sexual reproduction is another evolutionary dilemma.

You still haven't answered.

Where did inner turmoil come from? You think that it somehow haunts me that sexual reproduction has been a source of mystery for evolution? HAH! The frustration you witnessed was actually the result of trying to deal with you. Not in a logical sense, not trying to deal with your arguments (they're absent), but rather trying to verbally contain you. Your sort is very difficult to have a discussion with. You shift subjects, you change topics, you shift the burden of proof off of you, you ignore responses altogether and claim that people aren't responding, you switch around what you "mean", you refuse to cite your sources (even after being asked three or four times), you refuse to even provide your logical train of thought (even after being asked twice) by basically saying "no you first", you reuse the same argument even after it's been defeated on countless occasions, you lack a basic understanding of most of the things you go on about here, you've never been formally educated in biology or evolution (as far as I can tell), you lack a basic working understanding of the scientific process and the scientific method, you continually cling to logical fallacies such as arguments from incredulity ("Cell trends"), your philosophy of science is weak, you don't keep up with the latest research (aside from whatever creationsafaris feeds you), and you don't read the primary literature (so you can't tell if what creationsafaris feeds you is a line of crap). I am confident that you are not wholly unfamiliar with those complaints about yourself, having heard them on numerous occasions from numerous readers. Whether or not you agree with what I said is irrelevant -- I'm sure you would agree that arguing with such a person would be difficult and frustrating.

But to answer your question, you must understand that you and I come from completely different schools of thought. In my training, being educated in science, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". I certainly would not call "sexual reproduction" a dilemma so much as I would more appropriately term it a "mystery". There are many hypothesis put forth, but ultimately I think we have a lot more to learn.

I don't know.

I'm turmoiling inside now. Hah!

 

[bob b]

But to answer your question, you must understand that you and I come from completely different schools of thought. In my training, being educated in science, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". I certainly would not call "sexual reproduction" a dilemma so much as I would more appropriately term it a "mystery". There are many hypothesis put forth, but ultimately I think we have a lot more to learn.

I don't know.

I'm turmoiling inside now. Hah!

It's good to know that the origin of sexual reproduction is still an evolutionary "mystery".

 

[macguy]

Faith is a tricky word, since it is often used in two different senses. There is faith based upon evidence, and there is religious faith.

It depends on what religious faith you are speaking of. If under Christian terms, it is not a "tricky word" as Scripture makes the definition rather clear.

The other sense of the word is what Richard Dawkins calls "religious faith". This is belief without evidence, and I think what Skeptic was referring to. Among many people, this type of faith is seen as superior to the first, and a virtue of a true believer.

This definition of faith is unfounded and even Dawkins admits that this has never been the definition that Christians accept. Skeptic can refer to something irrelevant if he so wishes but he never made that clear. It appeared that he wanted to put Christianity into this category which isn't correct.

They may claim to have evidence to support their belief, but i may disagree with them on whether the evidence really supports their belief.

That's why I presented a link which deals with this evidence. I was therefore correct in noting his categorical mistake when it comes to labeling Christianity as fairy tale. That is hardly an accurate depiction where there is actually testable claims in the Bible. The evidence supports it.

In the Evolution/YEC debate, if you can call it a debate, the YEC seems to prefer the second kind of faith, albeit thinly disguised as the first.

I wouldn't disagree that there are those who adopt the second definition of faith and certainly ministries such as AiG are included. AiG is mostly an evangelical institute and sadly doesn't research but they may contribute some money on a project from time to time. This is why I don't recommend visiting that website due to it's wildly over-simplistic claims. Science isn't for the laymen and requires in-depth knowledge. It was a good starting point, but I would recommend CRSQ and Journal of Creation. If you read such articles, then such a claim would be rather unfounded. All you would say is that this evidence is "incorrect" but at least it isn't the second kind of faith. They really are trying to look at what the evidence says.

 

[SUTG]

The only other forum I frequent (which I also own) is a science forum...

Would you mind sharing the URL here or by PM?

I have two good science forums that I frequent (mostly just to aask questions) and wouldn't mind a third.

Althouth I also understand if you'd rather not pass on the information.

 

[SUTG]

This definition of faith is unfounded and even Dawkins admits that this has never been the definition that Christians accept. Skeptic can refer to something irrelevant if he so wishes but he never made that clear. It appeared that he wanted to put Christianity into this category which isn't correct.

That is why I said it was a tricky word. There are so many meanings that when people argue about faith, alot of time it just turns out to be an argument about the meanings of words. Even dictionary.com calls it "belief without evidence". I think alot of people use it that way.

That is hardly an accurate depiction where there is actually testable claims in the Bible. The evidence supports it.

Here is where I would disagree, although it is off topic unless you are referring to the claims of YECs that are found in the Bible.

I wouldn't disagree that there are those who adopt the second definition of faith and certainly ministries such as AiG are included. AiG is mostly an evangelical institute and sadly doesn't research but they may contribute some money on a project from time to time. This is why I don't recommend visiting that website due to it's wildly over-simplistic claims. Science isn't for the laymen and requires in-depth knowledge.

We more or less agree here. I rarely visit AiG except for an occassional visit due to a macabre interest in seeing them try and defend their wild claims.

It was a good starting point, but I would recommend CRSQ and Journal of Creation. If you read such articles, then such a claim would be rather unfounded. All you would say is that this evidence is "incorrect" but at least it isn't the second kind of faith. They really are trying to look at what the evidence says.

I've only visited CRSQ a few times and found them to be a more sublte, better disguised version of AiG. The problem is in their methodology of starting with the conclusion.

 

[macguy]

That is why I said it was a tricky word. There are so many meanings that when people argue about faith, alot of time it just turns out to be an argument about the meanings of words. Even dictionary.com calls it "belief without evidence". I think alot of people use it that way.

When in relation to a particular religion, on the other hand, it wouldn't necessarily be a tricky word as it's logical to arrive at what the religion claims to define faith as. Words back in those days were different and in our time, I suppose it is tricky in certain cases. True but the first definition also says that faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing". According to verbal advantage, the first definition usually implies that it's the most used definition. The second one is true, but in my view it has to be used in the correct cases. First one should establish that creation is a fairy tale, which would then justify such a definition of faith.

Here is where I would disagree, although it is off topic unless you are referring to the claims of YECs that are found in the Bible.

Indeed as I was essentially referring to the historical aspects of the Bible. Young Earth Creationism is simply an interpretation of origins so I didn't want to act as if it was fact. You know well that I argue that interpretations doesn't automatically mean it's a fact. The burden of proof is on the YEC's to demonstrate that it is the best interpretation.

I've only visited CRSQ a few times and found them to be a more sublte, better disguised version of AiG. The problem is in their methodology of starting with the conclusion.

I disagree strongly here. Although you may be correct in noting that their methodology is basically the same, I hardly see unwarranted conclusions in their work. At most, they may make some small assumptions such as YEC being as a correct interpretation and creation as science. Unlike AiG, they don't say we're science because evolution isn't. They are justified in making the assumption because many do real research. The journal is very informative and brings about interesting conversations. I have seen them put up criticisms of their work to encourage friendly discussions which I particularly enjoy. Also, there has been disagreement among creationists such as whether speed of light is constant by considering the evidence. Wild speculations are not given in this journal but actually give a reasonable explanation for the data. You should read some of the young earth evidence as it is quite interesting. They don't necessarily have to be right. The important thing is to acknowledge that this is science.

BTW, hilarious avatar!

 

[noguru]

Just peculiar that one would submit a post (your 5th one on a 3 paged thread, so far) for the sole purpose of calling somebody an idiot rather than to continue on with your great wealth of knowledge.

There is a history of exchanges between Bob and I that goes back to more than 5. When someone willfully ignores my posts by claiming that they are "nonsensical" without an explanation for why they are "nonsensical", I am inclined to believe that person is acting like an idiot.

But let's get back to the subject of this thread. Do you have any comments about the other posts in this thread? How about my post where I attempted to illuminate the distinction between sexual reproduction and sexual dimorphism and the implications regarding this subject?

 

[bob b]

It's important to know that the origin of sexual reproduction is still an evolutionary "mystery".

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It's important to know that the origin of sexual reproduction is still an evolutionary "mystery".

Yes it is. After all, some young hotshot can't figure it out and make a name for himself if we don't know where our knowledge is still hazy. Nature is full of mysteries. It's only your side that finds this so abhorent.

 

[bob b]

Yes it is. After all, some young hotshot can't figure it out and make a name for himself if we don't know where our knowledge is still hazy. Nature is full of mysteries. It's only your side that finds this so abhorent.

I find it exciting rather than abhorent, because it lends weight to my discovery that God gave us a brilliant "hint" in Genesis about how life first started: "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning".

I am currently reading Sean Carroll's exciting book about evo-devo and it looks like Hox genes also fit into the pattern that God hinted at.

In other words, everything that evolutionists say happened via evolution occurred before the Cambrian explosion.

It makes sense then that it was all in place at the beginning, because God designed the first creatures that way.

Praise be to God.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I find it exciting rather than abhorent, because it lends weight to my discovery that God gave us a brilliant "hint" in Genesis about how life first started: "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the very beginning".

In what way? Our ignorance of certain processes by your reckoning somehow strengthens your God of ignorance. What hints are you referring to? Why wouldn't God be more explicit?

I am currently reading Sean Carroll's exciting book about evo-devo and it looks like Hox genes also fit into the pattern that God hinted at.
In other words, everything that evolutionists say happened via evolution occurred before the Cambrian explosion.

What? So you accept the Cambrian explosion but deny the rest of the history of life?

It makes sense then that it was all in place at the beginning, because God designed the first creatures that way.

Praise be to God.

I'm getting dizzy from your circular reasoning! :dizzy:

 

[bob b]

In what way? Our ignorance of certain processes by your reckoning somehow strengthens your God of ignorance. What hints are you referring to? Why wouldn't God be more explicit?

He was as explicit as was appropriate, but until recently it has not been fully appreciated how encompassing the "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the beginning.

What? So you accept the Cambrian explosion but deny the rest of the history of life?

No to both questions. All we see today has descended from the originally created types. The fact that evolutionists have to assume that all the sophistication was present prior to the Cambrian blows their theory out of the water. No more slow and gradual change via "random mutations plus natural selection" and its supposed "tons of evidence".

I'm getting dizzy from your circular reasoning! :dizzy:

You mean my inference from the evidence?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

He was as explicit as was appropriate, but until recently it has not been fully appreciated how encompassing the "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures at the beginning.

Show me your evidence for that.

No to both questions. All we see today has descended from the originally created types. The fact that evolutionists have to assume that all the sophistication was present prior to the Cambrian blows their theory out of the water. No more slow and gradual change via "random mutations plus natural selection" and its supposed "tons of evidence".

You have such a selective understanding of ToE that it's almost amusing. Almost.

You mean my inference from the evidence?

:rotfl: What evidence are you referring to?

 

[bob b]

Show me your evidence for that.
You have such a selective understanding of ToE that it's almost amusing. Almost.

The ToE is a half truth.

Creatures today are descended from ancient ancestors, but "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures", not a single primitive one. And the primary mechanism that generated such great variation was sexual reproduction rather than random mutations.

This is what evo-devo is beginning to reveal.

 

[BalanceofJudgement]

Unless you change your attitude you are doomed.

Oh thats a bit much, but very Christian, 'Believe what i say or something bad will happen to you'

 

[Johnny]

And the primary mechanism that generated such great variation was sexual reproduction rather than random mutations.

Sexual reproduction does not produce novel variation, it only recombines existing variation.

 

[BalanceofJudgement]

The ToE is a half truth.

Thats why its called a 'Theory' and not the fact of evolution we understand most of it it makes sense and it fits but being a scientist i will look at any other 'Theories' which get voiced have a think see how they fit but if it doesn't it's gone i wont take it just cause it fits better with what i may like to be true i think intelligent design gives people a way of using bits of a theory that is probably true (evolution) but to let it fit with their belief's i.e. a belief in a deity of some kind.

Creatures today are descended from ancient ancestors, but "multiple types of fairly advanced creatures", not a single primitive one. And the primary mechanism that generated such great variation was sexual reproduction rather than random mutations.

But sexual reproduction is an excellent exponent to evolution it allows different offspring to gain different combinations of the genetic traits possessed by the parents any and all mutations possessed by the parents can or may be passed on now any combination of these mutations or lack thereof gives rise to variation, e.g. mutations possessed by the parents are transfered to the offspring these mutations cause unfavorable traits in the offspring which cause it to die, unfavorable traits are not passed no evolution, none of the mutations possessed by the parents are passed on offspring lives but no evolution, mutations are passed on they confer some advantage offspring lives evolution occurs this offspring possesses an advantage over it's siblings and others of the species more likely to survive passes on this advantage etc... generations down the line advantage is still present but in an increased number of the species, this is why there is an imperative in the species to have multiple children it gives a greater chance of favorable traits being passed on, you have several children these have different combinations of your genes these different combinations can cause none, all or most of these offspring to to survive to reproduce and so on.

Sexual reproduction to my mind is a brilliant method of distributing genes to offspring which allows the pressures of the environment to influence the development of a species, and sexual reproduction is possible in even primal single celled organisms, bacteria have this ability it is far simpler and some what different to how it occurs in more advanced organisms but is still present and all that is needed is for this process to become more sophisticated by incremental steps over the millions of years this planet has been capable of supporting life its not unlikely that it evolved to be what it is today from simple single celled organisms.

 

[Andre1983]

By the way, what gives you any right to call Christianity a fairy tale when atheism can state that some came from nothing? They also make more outlandish claims:

1: Life came from non-life.
2: Intelligence arose from non-intelligence.
3: Order comes out of chaos.
4: Irrationality brings reason.

1 and 2: Something comes from something
3: If you call the state the universe is going towards is order...
4: Atheists claim that rationality brings reason...