Weird question about the Theory of Evolution

[USincognito]

Actually the vast majority of plants have only one gender, having both the male (pollen producing) parts and the female.

Just for clarity, the correct terms are dioecious and monoecious which in Greek are two or one household. Humans are dioecious having two households or genders while plants and other species are monoecious having just one household or gender.

Point taken. My point was that individuals exchanging genetic material goes back at least as far as the plant/animal common ancestor. I'll have to find a better way of expressing that.

 

[Grandslam]

So you aren't really interested in learning.

You need to realize that the reason we know anything at all is because there are those who are passionate about science and have devoted their careers to studying the very questions you ask

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven. Science is supposed to be about objectively testing and debating the evidence, not saying "Just trust us, we know what we're talking about".

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

 

[USincognito]

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven.

Theories are never proven. They only fail to be falsified and are buttressed by verification of predictions to the point where they're provisionally accepted as factual.

Evolution passed that point many years ago.

Science is supposed to be about objectively testing and debating the evidence, not saying "Just trust us, we know what we're talking about".

Ever heard of scientific papers and the peer review process?

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

Really? Why don't you explain this in short paragraph or two? I suspect that:
A. You're parroting verbatim a Creationist speaker or website.
B. You don't have any idea how genetics and mutations work.

Feel free to demonstrate my suspicions wrong.

 

[CabVet]

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven. Science is supposed to be about objectively testing and debating the evidence, not saying "Just trust us, we know what we're talking about".

Evolutionary biologists don't ridicule people that criticize evolution. They ridicule people that reject evolution without even knowing what it is.

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

Among the many flaws that evolution actually has (which are mostly things that we cannot explain yet), this is not one of them.

P.S.: It is wrong to say people "believe" (or don't) in evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory based on facts and data. You either accept it or reject it, based on facts and data. No belief necessary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven.

Since this entire thread is full of people calmly and civilly explaining the OP's questions, and since FrenchyBearpaw was advocating the knowledge and education (and not, as you bafflingly claim, blind faith), your complaint seems a tad premature.

Science is supposed to be about objectively testing and debating the evidence, not saying "Just trust us, we know what we're talking about".

Indeed, and since no one says that, your objection is moot.

Actually, I'm wrong. There are people who advocate such an irrational and anti-intellectual as "Just trust me", but they call it 'faith'.

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

How mutations account for complex systems has been known for 150 years - it was the central thesis of Darwin's original book. Of all the facets of evolution you could have picked, you picked its strongest and most well-evidenced quality. Far be it from me to make aspersions about you, it's nonetheless telling that you would make such a schoolboy error.

 

[And-U-Say]

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven. Science is supposed to be about objectively testing and debating the evidence, not saying "Just trust us, we know what we're talking about".

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

That's not what he said. Isn't dishonesty supposed to be a bad thing for christians? The only time a Scientist says "just trust us" is when someone says "I don't want to spend the time to learn any of this".

Get it straight.

 

[USincognito]

I hope "grandslam" returns to this thread otherwise it looks like he actually struck out.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I hope "grandslam" returns to this thread otherwise it looks like he actually struck out.

Only the one post over a fortnight ago. I'm always struck by the dedication of posters who go through the rigmarole of logging in just to make a post they won't ever come back to.

 

[Naraoia]

No. You fail to understand that your links say that there is no clear answer. First sentence: "The evolution of sexual reproduction is described by several competing scientific hypotheses."

What this says is that there are several non-compatible theories, no clear answer how it might have happened.

Does it ever actually say "non-compatible" or are you misinterpreting "competing"?

A population of Chlorella vulgaris (a single-celled algae) over the course of a weekend obtained a mutation to the genes that transcribe for ligase proteins; due to environmental forcing (IE an infestation of predatory paramecium) the population became fixated with the mutation (IE all members of the population that survived the weekend was the ones with the ligase mutations). This was due to the fact that the mutated ligase protein failed to allow the sister cells to fully break away. This resulted in a colonial form that was too big for the paramecium to swallow.

Wait, they know the mutation? I've seen the paper that describes the appearance of multicellularity under predation pressure, I don't think it says anything about the genetic basis, though. If you know a study that does, that would be awesome!

As in separation between male and female... didn't know how else to say it.

Ah. "Having separate sexes"? I dunno.

It is true however that scientist look to them and many other species with no clear gender to try and understand why there's a separation in the first place.

I've met people who have done work on plants that can be hermaphrodites or "gendered" within the same population, or hermaphrodites with different levels of investment in their male and female functions. I seem to recall that figuring out why can be a giant headache

... news to me... but then I haven't really been looking into it for a while so I'm a bit out of the loop on that one.

I'm not entirely sure about the history of the idea, but I think Ruiz-Trillo et al. (1999) may have been one of the earliest papers to place flatworms proper deep among other protostome phyla. As far as I'm aware, large-scale molecular studies fairly consistently relate the beasties to lophotrochozoans/spiralians (terminology is a bit confused), although they are notoriously fast-evolving and therefore hard to place exactly.

(Sorry for the infodump. I <3 animal phylogeny.)

Didn't chordates come before vertebrates and are considered to be animals that possess a single nerve chord generally running the length of their body?

Close To be pedantically precise: vertebrates are a subgroup of chordates (so yes, chordates did come before vertebrates).

Chordates are defined (among other things) by a single nerve chord that is (1) dorsal (i.e. above the gut) and (2) hollow inside. (Here's a really nice figure featuring chick embryos from Gilbert's Developmental Biology. The hollowness is a lot more obvious in vertebrate embryos than adults...)

(Though as far as I'm concerned, chordates are defined by their shared ancestry. The dorsal nerve tube just happens to be one of the conspicuous manifestations of said ancestry )

*DERP* You're right... they're not chordates... not even close. I was just completely mistaken on that one!

's all right. All brains eat beans sometimes!

Reed Frogs and Wrinkled Frogs do this. That's all I know... so yeah, it's more common in fish.

Cool stuff. I learn something every day...

This attitude really annoys me. Evolutionists so often try to stifle debate about the topic by ridiculing those who don't believe in it, as if the theory is proven.

I must echo CabVet here:

Evolutionary biologists don't ridicule people that criticize evolution. They ridicule people that reject evolution without even knowing what it is.

Come, demonstrate an actual understanding of evolution. Show me that you know where the field stands, what questions are actually debated. By all means, present your educated objections. But if your objections are on the level of "but mutations can't generate new information", then for the love of God, go away and learn what mutations and information are.

(Or, heck, you don't even need to go away. There's a fair number of people right here with a decent education about evolution and the willingness to share said education.)

I'm an evolutionary biologist by official training. I happen to like physics, though, and every now and then I'll read a popular book about relativity, or quantum mechanics, or string theory (yikes!) or whatever. You might see me discussing physics, or even arguing about physics, with physicists, but you'll not see me tell them that their well-established theories are Wrong.

Even if I thought that, I wouldn't have the understanding required to make a meaningful criticism. If I had doubts about, say, general relativity - the right course for me would be to go and ask whether I'd missed something. Maybe I'm onto something, but chances are that I simply haven't heard about the information that solves my problem.

The bottom line is recognise the level of your expertise/ignorance before you go into a debate. It helps if you do have an intimate knowledge of a field - any field. Look back on how much you've learned about that area over the years, and it will give you an idea of how much you have yet to learn about other things.

If you don't, you'll go around telling experts they are wrong about their areas of expertise, and then being surprised/insulted when they don't take you seriously.

(Apologies if that sounded a bit ranty.)

OP, there are many serious flaws in evolutionary theory, one major one being how gradual mutations could account for complex biological systems.

There is, in fact, a variety of ways in which they could, one being accidentally duplicating parts and tweaking the now redundant part. (A small-scale but thoroughly dissected example.) The origin of biological complexity is more of an exciting research area than a serious flaw.

Also, I think speaking of "gradual mutations" is a red herring. There are many kinds of mutations, some of them small and some of them large, some of them with small effects and some of them with large ones (a small mutation and a mutation of small effect are NOT the same!).

But importantly, the consequences of mutations can be, er, complex. Maybe a whole genome duplication doesn't immediately change much, but it provides thousands of extra genes with far reduced selective constraint.

Perhaps a mutation gains a foothold completely by accident, or by selection on one effect, but together with a later mutation ends up creating something new.* Or maybe two species get together and turn into a single, more complex organism.

*IIRC citrate utilisation in the long-term E. coli experiment evolved in this way. The ability to use a new protein to infect their hosts in these viruses definitely arose after four mutations that in themselves only benefited the original infection process came together, and simulations with digital organisms keep popping out complex features arising on the back of originally neutral or harmful mutations.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting -No. You fail to understand that your links say that there is no clear answer. First sentence: "The evolution of sexual reproduction is described by several competing scientific hypotheses."

What this says is that there are several non-compatible theories, no clear answer how it might have happened.

Does it ever actually say "non-compatible" or are you misinterpreting "competing"?

Are you thinking of "Holding hands, skipping with Carl Sagan sized smiles"?

Competing---Battling, combatant, combating, competing , competitive, conflicting, contending, contesting, cutthroat, disputing, emulating, emulous, equal, opposed, striving, vying, attempt, bandy, battle, be in the running, bid, challenge, clash, collide, contend, contest, cope with, emulate, encounter, essay, face, fence, fight, go after, go for broke, go for the gold, go for, grapple, in the hunt, jockey for position, joust, lock horns, match strength, match wits, oppose, participate in, pit oneself against, play, rival, run for, scramble for, seek prize, spar, strive, struggle, take on, take part, tilt, try, tussle, vie, wrestle

 

[CabVet]

What this says is that there are several non-compatible theories, no clear answer how it might have happened.

Well, at least there are much less hypotheses than creation myths.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, at least there are much less hypotheses than creation myths.

There are no hypotheses in creation stories.

So you mean many more. And that's a good thing.
A hypotheses has certain requirements not found in sacred scripture breathed by God.
Why do Creationists have to explain proper use of scientific terms?

 

[CabVet]

There are no hypotheses in creation stories.

And I never said that, did I?

So you mean more.

No, I mean less. There are thousands, if not millions of creation stories, but only a handful of hypotheses to explain the origin of life.

A hypotheses has certain requirements not found in sacred scripture breathed by God.

Again, I never referred to creation stories as hypotheses, you should re-read my posts.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are thousands, if not millions of creation stories..

Er.....Dream on. I count less than 100.
Please do add your own research results
to a Wiki or inform somebody of your findings.
Just add your opinion to the Wiki and see if it sticks
or gets shot down by mediators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

but only a handful of hypotheses to explain the origin of life.

And its such a close call with tiny variations:

Darwin speculated that life began in a warm pond on the primordial Earth.
Lately other scientists have suggested that the magic joining of molecules
that could go on replicating might have happened in an undersea hot spring,
on another planet or inside an asteroid. Some astronomers wonder if it
could be happening right now underneath the ice of Europa or in the
methane seas of Titan.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So that's:
From muck http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
From Volcanic pimples http://www.livescience.com/3544-life-thrives-active-underwater-volcano.html
From Mars http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html
From Asteroids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Granted, they are all so similar as to be one?
I wonder that the chemistry is similar?

 

[Naraoia]

What this says is that there are several non-compatible theories, no clear answer how it might have happened.

No, what it says is COMPETING theories. Which is, by your kindly provided thesaurus, a synonym for...

Battling, combatant, combating, competing , competitive, conflicting, contending, contesting, cutthroat, disputing, emulating, emulous, equal, opposed, striving, vying, attempt, bandy, battle, be in the running, bid, challenge, clash, collide, contend, contest, cope with, emulate, encounter, essay, face, fence, fight, go after, go for broke, go for the gold, go for, grapple, in the hunt, jockey for position, joust, lock horns, match strength, match wits, oppose, participate in, pit oneself against, play, rival, run for, scramble for, seek prize, spar, strive, struggle, take on, take part, tilt, try, tussle, vie, wrestle

I can't see "mutually exclusive" or "incompatible" anywhere.

Let's see, still in the introduction, the Wikipedia article offers these ideas:

One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation. Another explanation is based on two molecular advantages. The first of these is the advantage of recombinational DNA repair (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time), while the second is the advantage of complementation (also known as hybrid vigor, heterosis or masking of mutations)

Sex can have an advantage through promoting variation AND improving DNA repair via meiosis AND masking deleterious mutations. None of those explanations are mutually exclusive, but they are perfectly capable of being competing, because (1) not being mutually exclusive doesn't mean they all must be simultaneously correct, (2) humans like simple explanations involving just one magic factor, (3) even when we finally accept that something can have multiple causes and our pet theory might not be the whole story, we'll argue no end about which of the multiple causes is most important.

Make sense?

 

[Phileas]

This thread was awesome and very interesting reading (well up until this page where it seems to have diverted to the usual tropes). Well done.

 

[Lollerskates]

I have studied evolution some, but I really don't understand it.

This is gonna sound odd, but I don't see how reproduction evolved. The theory of evolution says that everything happened gradually. My problem is that I don't see how groups of a few cells started laying eggs. I also have a hard time understanding how a transition from birds and fish (who lay eggs) into mammals (who have sexual intercourse) could have happened gradually. I especially have trouble imagining how the male/female division evolved. It doesn't make sense. Do you have any ideas? Thanks in advance!

My personal scientific advice:

Major in biochemistry or biophysics. Reproduce the laboratory experiments that champion the theory of evolution. Judge for yourself.


Many people blindly believe "scientists" because they wear white lab coats. Do the experiments for yourself. You will have so much authority and power of intellect - to the point where you can categorically and individually challenge the status quo. Remember that scientists are people too. They are capable of lies, deceit, and manipulation. Follow the money: research grants are given with a specific agenda. A college rarely receive money for grants for controversial research. Thus, controversial topics lack "research" to substantiate themselves. Understand the politics of science, and discern for yourself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My personal scientific advice:

Major in biochemistry or biophysics. Reproduce the laboratory experiments that champion the theory of evolution. Judge for yourself.

Many people blindly believe "scientists" because they wear white lab coats.

People believe scientists because they replicate and confirm their results, and because their results lead to medicine and technology.

Do the experiments for yourself. You will have so much authority and power of intellect - to the point where you can categorically and individually challenge the status quo. Remember that scientists are people too. They are capable of lies, deceit, and manipulation. Follow the money: research grants are given with a specific agenda.

Yes: to do research, to challenge the status quo. Scientists are hailed when they overturn established knowledge, and there is a strong financial interest in doing so.

A college rarely receive money for grants for controversial research. Thus, controversial topics lack "research" to substantiate themselves. Understand the politics of science, and discern for yourself.

Ah, so well-funded and well-studied subjects are inherently fallacious because only the status quo gets money. That's why nuclear physics and quantum mechanics and general relativity and tectonic plate theory and other revolutionary paradigm shifts... didn't happen.

 

[Lethe]

People believe scientists because they replicate and confirm their results, and because their results lead to medicine and technology.

 

[Split Rock]

Many people blindly believe "scientists" because they wear white lab coats. Do the experiments for yourself. You will have so much authority and power of intellect - to the point where you can categorically and individually challenge the status quo. Remember that scientists are people too. They are capable of lies, deceit, and manipulation. Follow the money: research grants are given with a specific agenda. A college rarely receive money for grants for controversial research. Thus, controversial topics lack "research" to substantiate themselves. Understand the politics of science, and discern for yourself.

Yes, scientists are people too. They are not agents of Satan anymore than bus drivers are. They are capable of , deceit, and manipulation, but are not any more likely than a bus driver is.