Questions for biological "Evolutionists"

[ValenII]

First, I need to ask evolutionists regarding this (this is very important):

Premise: Evolutionists determined that there was first no sexual organism that appeared in the beginnings of life. Instead there was an asexual organism that came first into being.

Question: What is the complete process of how an asexual microorganism eventually became sexual animals (based on biological evolution) with individuals having a male organ or a female organ to reproduce? (Elaborate with the relationships of the processes in accordance with the period of time.)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sounds like a degree level essay question to me. Do I have the room or the time to do a full answer?

No. Especially since wheel re-invention is tedious.

I suggest you start here - http://www.nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/ where there is a collection of articles on the topic.

Then you might want to read Maynard Smith's book - "Evolution of Sex". (1978), or "The Major Transitions in The Major Transitions in Evolution", (1995)

The real question is - are you asking this question because you want to know the answer, or because you mistakenly believe that there isn't one and you're somehow going to bring the entire edifice of evolutionary theory crashing to the ground?

 

[OldBadfish]

We didn't evolve from one celled asexual organisms, we didn't even decend from monkeys, so we were created pretty much like God said.

This asexual evolution stuff is a little far out if you ask me.

Way further out than the simple truth of being created as unique species..

 

[Jet Black]

most questions asked by creationists follow the latter premise. the annoying thing is, that as you continually explain the minutae of things, they get bored and wander off to find something else that will bring science crashing down. see my explanation of the speed of light to ikester for a prime example of this.

 

[OldBadfish]

The real question is - are you asking this question because you want to know the answer, or because you mistakenly believe that there isn't one and you're somehow going to bring the entire edifice of evolutionary theory crashing to the ground?

First I would think that the evolutionary theory would have to have a backing of sufficient proof before it can be debated and caused to be crashed to the ground, wouldn't you think?

 

[Siliconaut]

@badfish:

This asexual evolution stuff is a little far out if you ask me.

In what way? Let's start at the basics: Do you debate that asexual reproduction exists?

 

[OldBadfish]

most questions asked by creationists follow the latter premise. the annoying thing is, that as you continually explain the minutae of things, they get bored and wander off to find something else that will bring science crashing down.

But it's not convincing, thats why we wander off. Seriously.

 

[OldBadfish]

@badfish:
In what way? Let's start at the basics: Do you debate that asexual reproduction exists?

No, I think worms are asexual. But I wouldn't say that my great, great, great,great,great,great grandpa was a worm.

Some things are just created that way.

Besides, last I heard evolutionists had changed up a little and only admit to sharing common ancestry, I thought it was the concensus that we did not evolve from one celled organisms among serious logical evolutionists.

If this is true, then there are unique species that have always been unique, shouldn't that allude to intelligent design? I mean if the great Carl Sagan can admit that the fossil record could be consistent with an intelligent designer (but seemingly not an efficient? Designer), then can't any of you admit that we may have been created?

 

[Jet Black]

Besides, last I heard evolutionists had changed up a little and only admit to sharing common ancestry, I thought it was the concensus that we did not evolve from one celled organisms.

err, no, we did. the common ancestry thing goes like:

we did not evolve from a rabbit or a dog or a tree, but we share a common ancestor with them. the one thing we all share a common ancestor with is a single celled organism.

 

[Jet Black]

No, I think worms are asexual. But I wouldn't say that my great, great, great,great,great,great grandpa was a worm.

one of your ancestors would have been a simple triplo-blastic coelenterate

 

[Jet Black]

But it's not convincing, thats why we wander off. Seriously.

well how about taking a stab at falsifying the argument. it is all well and good saying we are not convincing, but most of the time I find myself discussing physics with someone whose entire experience od science seems to consist of a spaceship on their conrnflakes packet and a quick snatch of discovery channel as they flick their way through to sunday worship live*.

*ok, I am exaggerating.

 

[OldBadfish]

one of your ancestors would have been a simple triplo-blastic coelenterate

Great. I am relieved that he/she wasn't algae or something..

So we started off as triplo-blastic but each species took a different turn or mutated in a different direction?

Nahhh, we all share a lot with water too, being comprised mostly of water, but it doesn't mean we were water.

 

[OldBadfish]

well how about taking a stab at falsifying the argument. it is all well and good saying we are not convincing, but most of the time I find myself discussing physics with someone whose entire experience od science seems to consist of a spaceship on their conrnflakes packet and a quick snatch of discovery channel as they flick their way through to sunday worship live*.

*ok, I am exaggerating.

Hey your not dealing with a dummy here, I am steeped in various branches of science, I own lots of sci-fi films.

 

[Arikay]

We do? I didnt know we had a similiar genetic make up (you know, the stuff that evolution effects) as water.

seriously though, we do share stuff in common with water, we both had the same ancestor a long long time ago, when the elements were first forming.

 

[Jet Black]

So we started off as triplo-blastic but each species took a different turn or mutated in a different direction?

we still are triploblastic.

and be careful using species at such an early stage, you would have had lots of very simple multicellular organisms that reproduced, an the offspring were selected for, using the standard evolutionatry algorithm.

 

[Jet Black]

Nahhh, we all share a lot with water too, being comprised mostly of water, but it doesn't mean we were water.

well water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, oxygen was previously hydrogen (and some other stuff inbetween), and alot of the things, but not all, that we have in our bodies like iron, were previously oxygen. you could say that we all used to be hydrogen, but not water, since some bits of us were formerly not oxygen, and hence it is highly unlikely that all of us were previously water. bits of us were, and still are though.

 

[Siliconaut]

@Badfish:

No, I think worms are asexual. But I wouldn't say that my great, great, great,great,great,great grandpa was a worm.

Some things are just created that way.

There's lots of single-cellular organisms that reproduce asexually. The important advantages of sexual reproduction are the added selective pressure and raised mutation rate. Species with sexual reproduction can - on the whole - adapt quicker than others with a similar level of complexity and asexual reproduction. Your grand*100-father was not a worm, but go back a couple of millions of generation, and he wasn't human.

Besides, last I heard evolutionists had changed up a little and only admit to sharing common ancestry, I thought it was the concensus that we did not evolve from one celled organisms among serious logical evolutionists.

One of our first ancestors was a one-celled organism. You can trace every species back to such "humble" beginnings. And why would it be illogical?

If this is true, then there are unique species that have always been unique, shouldn't that allude to intelligent design?

Well, it's not true, so we have another indications species were *not* created separately.

I mean if the great Carl Sagan can admit that the fossil record could be consistent with an intelligent designer (but seemingly not an efficient? Designer), then can't any of you admit that we may have been created?

That may have been his personal opinion - if you could supply a quote that says so, for I doubt it was really his opinion. Carl Sagan has always stated that "intelligent design" is extremely unlikely due to the innumerable evidence against it.

 

[ValenII]

@Badfish:
There's lots of single-cellular organisms that reproduce asexually. The important advantages of sexual reproduction are the added selective pressure and raised mutation rate. Species with sexual reproduction can - on the whole - adapt quicker than others with a similar level of complexity and asexual reproduction. Your grand*100-father was not a worm, but go back a couple of millions of generation, and he wasn't human.


One of our first ancestors was a one-celled organism. You can trace every species back to such "humble" beginnings. And why would it be illogical?


Well, it's not true, so we have another indications species were *not* created separately.


That may have been his personal opinion - if you could supply a quote that says so, for I doubt it was really his opinion. Carl Sagan has always stated that "intelligent design" is extremely unlikely due to the innumerable evidence against it.

You sound as if you know everything and deserved to be worship. I know those blasted terms. Still it doesn't answer my main question.

 

[ValenII]

If biological evolution is gonna fall don't bring Gregor Mendel's Genetics with it.

 

[Siliconaut]

@Valen:

You sound as if you know everything and deserved to be worship. I know those blasted terms. Still it doesn't answer my main question.

Huh? Please don't worship me! This kind of behaviour is most unbecoming, unhealthy and uninvited, so cease and desist!
What are your actual counter-arguments to my post, apart from the ad-hominem?

What "blasted terms", what "central question"? Karl already posted a link to a series of articles that deal with how sexual reproduction evolved. If I were genuinely sure you'd actually read what I'd write and not wander off and lose interest, I might give you a short synopsis of the history of sex. I'm not, though, as up to now, you have always left the thread whenever evidence that contradicted your position cropped up too much.

If biological evolution is gonna fall don't bring Gregor Mendel's Genetics with it.

What are you trying to say in this non-sentence? Do you debate genetics?