GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Did you even READ that?
First off its called "Red Queen's Hypothesis"
Not a theory, not even a law....
Second the article admits sex is a puzzle. The puzzle isn't so much sex might be used by evolution, but how and why a species would evolve two sexes that could be perfectly matched to create 2x1/2 a copy. Evolution is supposed to just happen based on elements surrounding the species not prediciting what the future might be like, or what might be useful. Asexual reproduction is more efficient.
Three arms could all be the rage in a few hundred generations - IF enough of those mutations take place, and IF there is a good enough reason for life to favor three-armed humands, and IF it doesn't interfere with our survival in some other way (throw off our balance to run, take too much heart capacity, etc.). I seem to remember that 6 toes is actually a dominant trait genetically.
And I seem to remember Zaphod Beeblebrox actually had a third-arm fitted when he was Galactic President, so they might be pretty helpful...and frankly, the Hitchhiker's Guide makes more sense than the Bible - at least it's internally consistent in it's stories and facts.
Did the bacteria turn into a fruit fly? All the evidence supports that it did.
And as far as I know, evolution DOES explain sex, because sex provides the cross-pollination of genes between two members of a species, which produces the best genetic variety for beneficial mutations to occur and thus help evolution along it's path. Sex basically evolved to aide evolution, as beings that transcribe genetic materiel evolve faster, respond better to their environment, and thus become dominant species over time.
Case closed.
Future Shock
You betray your ignorance of the scientific process here. The Red Queen Hypothesis is, in fact, extremely well-supported by dozens (if not hundreds by now) of empirical studies, both in the wild and in the lab. Would you rather I point you to the legion of technical journal articles supporting it? But you're right, I didn't read the article.
For certain types of organisms in certain types of environments, yes, asexual reproduction is more efficient. That's why the majority of organisms are asexual reproducers.
However, if you're a relatively slow-breeding, long-lived organism (with its requisite relatively low mutation rate) faced with rapidly evolving parasites, sexual reproduction (with the crossing-over, copying errors, & recombination it entails) generates the genetic diversity necessary for thwarting parasitism.
This brief exchange is yet another example of the challenge facing the biologists who released the statement. The vast majority of anti-evolutionists are simply ignorant about evolution. They don't understand it, and most don't understand science in general. You can not be both sane and well-educated and not accept evolution as a well-supported scientific theory.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Look At this Link Yeast can reproduce both sexually and asexually. For the scientists to get their experiment to work, they needed to create a mutant strain of yeast. Well, in my opinion that shoots their experiment up.
No, it does not in the slightest...it says that there was once a genetic mutation of a bacterium that managed to merge and exchange DNA with another bacterium of the same sort, and that the offspring of this pair also learned that same trick, and that IT'S offspring had a greater genetic mutation rate than bacterium that reproduced monosexually. And that over a great many generations, the DNA exchanging bacterium grew in capabilities faster due to beneficial mutations at higher rates due to those exchanges, and therefore the that strain propogated faster and became dominant...giving rise to sex with partners as the bacterium evolved.
There is NO intelligence there - it's simply that exchanging DNA "shuffles the cards" allowing for faster mutations than strains that do not exchange DNA. It's simple statistics - applied over millions of years. No intelligent designer: simple random variations, the superiority of one of those variations winning out over time, and the passing of that variation onto the suceeding generations...all of which we can observe in smaller species...
I believe people believe in Creationism because they are too fscking lazy to really learn biology...
Future Shock
N.B. - monosexed beings also mutate and evolve, just at a slower rate, as their mutations are caused by defects, random ionization, external chemicals, etc. As all of these ALSO happen to sexually reproducing organisms, their shuffling act provides the differentiator for a faster evolution. I include this simply so that someone doesn't write " but how did the FIRST mutation take place to allow the DNA combination..." - now you know.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
You betray your ignorance of the scientific process here. The Red Queen Hypothesis is, in fact, extremely well-supported by dozens (if not hundreds by now) of empirical studies, both in the wild and in the lab. Would you rather I point you to the legion of technical journal articles supporting it? But you're right, I didn't read the article.
For certain types of organisms in certain types of environments, yes, asexual reproduction is more efficient. That's why the majority of organisms are asexual reproducers.
However, if you're a relatively slow-breeding, long-lived organism (with its requisite relatively low mutation rate) faced with rapidly evolving parasites, sexual reproduction (with the crossing-over, copying errors, & recombination it entails) generates the genetic diversity necessary for thwarting parasitism.
This brief exchange is yet another example of the challenge facing the biologists who released the statement. The vast majority of anti-evolutionists are simply ignorant about evolution. They don't understand it, and most don't understand science in general. You can not be both sane and well-educated and not accept evolution as a well-supported scientific theory.
Show me the documented proof where any species that uses sexual reproduction started out as asexual then evolved both males and females that had the NEEDED to reproduce to continue the species. Remember you need at least one of each that wasn't munched by something else. Otherwise all bets are off for that species.
There is so much ignorance in the QUESTION that anyone with any real knowledge of biology would just shake their head, turn around, and walk away.
It's sort of like we're at a red light... you in your 1998 Supra, and me in a 2006 Ferrari... and you're revving your engine at me. But you know, I'm just going to make a right turn.
Wow, could you have FOUND a better article to prove my points? Thanks, saved me having to Google...
As for the "mutant strain", the scientists obviously needed to find an organism that would be IDENTICAL in every other aspect besides sexual reproduction - thus they chose yeast which can do it both ways, and then removed one way from one group. Nothing wrong there...it just ensures two populations that are identical in every respect except their reproduction mechanism. That is the PERFECT way to prove such a theory - two populations totally evolutionarily equivalent, EXCEPT for mode of sexual reproduction. The fact that they had to "turn off" a mode of reproduction for one group to differentiate doesn't invalidate the experiment - instead it provides perfect validity in control groups.
Wow, there is an awful lot you just don't know about scientific methods...no wonder you find comfort in the Bible as a literal document...
Future Shock
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
You betray your ignorance of the scientific process here. The Red Queen Hypothesis is, in fact, extremely well-supported by dozens (if not hundreds by now) of empirical studies, both in the wild and in the lab. Would you rather I point you to the legion of technical journal articles supporting it? But you're right, I didn't read the article.
For certain types of organisms in certain types of environments, yes, asexual reproduction is more efficient. That's why the majority of organisms are asexual reproducers.
However, if you're a relatively slow-breeding, long-lived organism (with its requisite relatively low mutation rate) faced with rapidly evolving parasites, sexual reproduction (with the crossing-over, copying errors, & recombination it entails) generates the genetic diversity necessary for thwarting parasitism.
This brief exchange is yet another example of the challenge facing the biologists who released the statement. The vast majority of anti-evolutionists are simply ignorant about evolution. They don't understand it, and most don't understand science in general. You can not be both sane and well-educated and not accept evolution as a well-supported scientific theory.
Show me the documented proof where any species that uses sexual reproduction started out as asexual then evolved both males and females that had the NEEDED to reproduce to continue the species. Remember you need at least one of each that wasn't munched by something else. Otherwise all bets are off for that species.
Some species of cherries require a second tree of a different variety in order to produce fruit. Other species are self-pollinating.
How about a species that reproduces both sexually & asexually?
Oh, and if you're taking pages from the Answers in Genesis playbook, refuting its 'criticisms' of the Red Queen is rather simple, as they're the same criticisms levied against the evolution of the eye, which have been thoroughly refuted as well. Creationists are great at putting old wine in new bottles (ie. 'intelligent design').
He might be but I don't. God & science aren't mutually exclusive, they each have exclusive domains. It's the continued misapplication of God to the realm ruled by science that chafes.
That question isn't even relevant to the discussion - however, I will address it. Certainly a literal interpretation of the Bible IS mutually exclusive with what we now know about the world through science and the scientific method. Issues surrounding God, dieties, and overall belief patterns are not necessarily inconsistent with science if religious texts are not taken literally.
Future Shock
Before I think of modern medicine & human rights, I think of stupid people, period. And the morons shall inherit the Earth...
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Really the only part of the Bible scientists can have any contention with is Genesis...the rest has to do with history, God's Laws, Eternal Life and that sort of thing. Stuff science should really have no interest in (except paranormalists).
Read Genesis. Look at the way the Life, The Universe, Everything was put together...quite a bit like what Big Bang/Evolutionists would like to believe.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter