What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Al Touthentop]

Not if they did it both ways for a while.

That doesn't work. At some point, where they weren't having sex before, they have to have sex. The organs have to develop independently in both sexes. They have to cooperate perfectly. Failure results in extinction. And if they didn't have sex they would just remain in that state of reproduction in the "both" category.

So you imagine. But the possibility of any kind of a transition period seems to elude you. It is interesting to observe that there are some reptile species even in the present which reproduce both ways.

Which does not speak to or infer that other species were once like this. You're right, a transition period eludes me and it seems to elude evolution proponents too. Which species can produce "both ways" and explain what you mean by that. I am aware that there are some frogs that can change sexes and lay eggs and have the unswitched males cover those eggs. I am unaware of any that produce asexually and sexually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't work. At some point, where they weren't having sex before, they have to have sex. The organs have to develop independently in both sexes. They have to cooperate perfectly. Failure results in extinction. And if they didn't have sex they would just remain in that state of reproduction in the "both" category.

And your authority for this claim is? Don't say "logic" because logic does not support you.

Which does not speak to or infer that other species were once like this. You're right, a transition period eludes me and it seems to elude evolution proponents too. Which species can produce "both ways" and explain what you mean by that. I am aware that there are some frogs that can change sexes and lay eggs and have the unswitched males cover those eggs. I am unaware of any that produce asexually and sexually.

You are looking at far too complex animals. The species that went both ways would have been much simpler, though we still do see some animals that go both ways today:

Earthworms are bisexual but still cross - fertilizat toppr.com

 

[Al Touthentop]

You would need to prove that. There appears to be plenty of room for error. Again this is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

I don't need to prove that, it's a self evident fact required by the theory of evolution. If mammals transitioned from reptiles, they had to make the transition from egg laying to live birth. Those reptiles that are live birth are in the lizard family.

And at some point down the line, they had to transition from asexual to sexual. That means going from one sex to two. And keeping a dual system just means that there's no advantage to either and so the transition would be spurious rather than necessary.

 

[Al Touthentop]

And your authority for this claim is? Don't say "logic" because logic does not support you.




You are looking at far too complex animals. The species that went both ways would have been much simpler, though we still do see some animals that go both ways today:

Earthworms are bisexual but still cross - fertilizat toppr.com

I was asking a question. This doesn't answer it.

 

[Shemjaza]

It had to happen in one generation or it didn't happen. Here's a fun exercise. Find any fossil where the species was asexual and then progressed to sexual.

"It's impossible to know from which of the reptiles the first mammals evolved."

Reptiles have penises and vaginas. At some point down the line they were asexual. Go back as far as you need to. The eggs have to be fertilized and the x and y chromosomes had to be separated in the male and female. That had to happen in a single generation or it didn't happen at all. Even in fish where the male covers the eggs outside the female's body, the male had to be given some sort of instructions that this was necessary, prior to this the process being asexual. It can't have been an accident or "natural selection" because again, if the first pair doesn't get it right, there are no subsequent pairs.

Then you have the problem of live birth. An egg contains all the ingredients to grow the offspring for it's entire "gestation period." To mess up even one part of the process of transition to a womb from an egg producing organ, is to extinct the species. Just think of the enormous change that it would take to go from a hard shell on an egg to embedding an tiny egg in the uterus ( an organ that didn't itself exist and which requires its own amazingly complex instructions to produce) and growing it to a survivable baby and then also the hormones and drugs required to make the mother push it out at the exact right time so that it could survive. She guesses wrong and its dead baby. Natural selection would never explain such a complex change even (especially) over time. You can't win that battle when none of the offspring make it to adulthood. There's no competition that would explain it. All of a sudden several offspring of the asexual parent have multiple reproductive mechanisms and the best one survives? It still requires a massive amount of change in a single generation even if that scenario were plausible.

Um, no reptile has X and Y chromosomes.

Not all reptiles have sex chromosomes at all.

Some reptiles can only reproduce asexually.

Some reptiles can reproduce asexually or sexually depending on circumstance.

Some mammals even lay eggs (and they don't have X and Y chromosomes either).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to prove that, it's a self evident fact required by the theory of evolution. If mammals transitioned from reptiles, they had to make the transition from egg laying to live birth. Those reptiles that are live birth are in the lizard family.

And at some point down the line, they had to transition from asexual to sexual. That means going from one sex to two. And keeping a dual system just means that there's no advantage to either and so the transition would be spurious rather than necessary.

Actually you do and no, it is not self evident. The person that makes a positive claim has the burden of proof.

Your sort of logic ends up in people claiming that humid air is denser than dry air because it is "self evident". And then if pressed for proof they point to liquid water which is much heavier than air. Of course it is the other way around.

If you cannot support your claims they are refuted by default.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was asking a question. This doesn't answer it.

Wrong, you made a statement with a logical fallacy in it and that pointed out your error.

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't work. At some point, where they weren't having sex before, they have to have sex. The organs have to develop independently in both sexes. They have to cooperate perfectly. Failure results in extinction. And if they didn't have sex they would just remain in that state of reproduction in the "both" category.



Which does not speak to or infer that other species were once like this. You're right, a transition period eludes me and it seems to elude evolution proponents too. Which species can produce "both ways" and explain what you mean by that. I am aware that there are some frogs that can change sexes and lay eggs and have the unswitched males cover those eggs. I am unaware of any that produce asexually and sexually.

Nobody believes that the transition from asexual to bisexual reproduction took place in one generation. Nobody believes that it would be possible. Evolutionary biologists don't believe it would be possible, you don't believe it would possible, No Body. So why are you arguing against it?

The same goes for the transition from egg laying to live birth. Why are you arguing against something that the theory of evolution doesn't claim?

This lizard lays eggs and gives live birth. We think it's undergoing a major evolutionary transition

 

[Al Touthentop]

Um, no reptile has X and Y chromosomes.

Not all reptiles have sex chromosomes at all.

Some reptiles can only reproduce asexually.

Some reptiles can reproduce asexually or sexually depending on circumstance.

Some mammals even lay eggs (and they don't have X and Y chromosomes either).

So these are examples where the things that had to happen in other mammals didn't happen. That does not eliminate the need for the other mammals to have made a transition in the way described does it?

 

[Speedwell]

So these are examples where the things that had to happen in other mammals didn't happen. That does not eliminate the need for the other mammals to have made a transition in the way described does it?

The "way described" is completely fanciful and has nothing whatever to do with the way the theory of evolution claims it happened. It's just something you made up and called "a self evident fact required by the theory of evolution."

 

[Al Touthentop]

Nobody believes that the transition from asexual to bisexual reproduction took place in one generation. Nobody believes that it would be possible. Evolutionary biologists don't believe it would be possible, you don't believe it would possible, No Body. So why are you arguing against it?

Because it would have to happen in a single generation if it were to happen at all.

The same goes for the transition from egg laying to live birth. Why are you arguing against something that the theory of evolution doesn't claim?

I don't think that article (I've read it before) is evidence that the species is changing. An egg could remain in the lizard and break, and a live lizard baby could emerge. That doesn't mean that the lizard in question has suddenly gotten a womb which gestates the offspring and provides nutrients directly instead of depositing them inside a protective shell, does it? If so, then would have happened in a single generation wouldn't it?

You're right that evolutionary theory does not suggest that a species could transition in a single generation. But I think it has to because the alternative is extinction. Besides which, there is no incentive to change if there's multiple avenues in a single species. The multiple avenues are an advantage to those with that capability. To produce more than one sexual reproduction method in a single species is itself orders of magnitude more complexity than just moving along a single trajectory in slow incremental changes. You cannot slowly and incrementally move from a self contained egg producing organ to a womb without intelligent planning to deal with the various risks involved. Nor could a move from asexual to sexual reproduction involving cooperative sex organs be done slowly and incrementally unless it was planned in advance to assure that species' survival.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it would have to happen in a single generation if it were to happen at all.

Why? An unsupported claim is a tacit admission that one is wrong.

I don't think that article (I've read it before) is evidence that the species is changing. An egg could remain in the lizard and break, and a live lizard baby could emerge. That doesn't mean that the lizard in question has suddenly gotten a womb which gestates the offspring and provides nutrients directly instead of depositing them inside a protective shell, does it? If so, then would have happened in a single generation wouldn't it?

You're right that evolutionary theory does not suggest that a species could transition in a single generation. But I think it has to because the alternative is extinction. Besides which, there is no incentive to change if there's multiple avenues in a single species. The multiple avenues are an advantage to those with that capability. To produce more than one sexual reproduction method in a single species is itself orders of magnitude more complexity than just moving along a single trajectory in slow incremental changes. You cannot slowly and incrementally move from a self contained egg producing organ to a womb without intelligent planning to deal with the various risks involved. Nor could a move from asexual to sexual reproduction involving cooperative sex organs be done slowly and incrementally unless it was planned in advance to assure that species' survival.

Except that is what we would expect to see in the change from egg bearing to live birth. If you understood the nature of evidence you would see that this is evidence for evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

You cannot slowly and incrementally move from a self contained egg producing organ to a womb without intelligent planning to deal with the various risks involved. Nor could a move from asexual to sexual reproduction involving cooperative sex organs be done slowly and incrementally unless it was planned in advance to assure that species' survival.

Anything which has to be done slowly and incrementally can be accomplished by randomly distributed variation and selection. But you don't like that idea. You don't even want to hear about why it might be possible. Do you think a process like that is somehow a barrier to divine providence?

 

[Al Touthentop]

The "way described" is completely fanciful and has nothing whatever to do with the way the theory of evolution claims it happened. It's just something you made up and called "a self evident fact required by the theory of evolution."

No, you're whistling past what I'm saying. You can't use the evidence of the current condition of some reptile species as proof that extreme changes didn't have to occur in a short period of time in a different species if that species was first asexual.

The theory of evolution says that species transitioned from asexual to sexual. It also says that species transitioned from egg laying to live birth.

What it doesn't address is the necessary changes that would have to be made in order for that to occur and for a given species to survive. Both scenarios, one generation, or many, require dozens if not hundreds of changes for a completion of the transition to occur successfully. Any problems result in extinction.

If a linear transition, then the whole process, by definition, is mapped. Because if at the end, one thing doesn't go right, the species has no way to reproduce. All of the incremental changes that happened along an incremental path had to add up to the successful conclusion and that cannot occur without knowing the end destination when such changes are incremental.

One option in that case is to, as you have suggested, keep the existing system in working order and then deprecate it. But the species that we know about that have these dual systems have them because they are an advantage. There's no incentive for them to discard the dual path to survival. So deprecation makes no sense. But that is what had to have happened for the species we know about that have separate x and y chromosomes and live births. They couldn't go back to their previous state because they don't have a path to do that and failing to use those organs will result in extinction. Atrophy isn't an option.

And even deprecation would suggest planning.

Anyone with experience in software migration can see the problems of so complex a transition. Foresight is required.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Why? An unsupported claim is a tacit admission that one is wrong.



Except that is what we would expect to see in the change from egg bearing to live birth.

What exactly would you expect to see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly would you expect to see?

Wow, what was in the article that was linked. A condition when some of the population produced live births and some did not. If live births were an advantage (and that is not always the case) over time the number that produced live births would continue to rise. And for individuals that would produce both if live births were advantageous we would see live births more and more frequently.

Do you understand the concept of "variation"? It exists in life. There can be several sources of variation. Variation is then put through the sieve of natural selection. Those that are better suited to the present environment are more likely to breed and pass on their traits.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Anything which has to be done slowly and incrementally can be accomplished by randomly distributed variation and selection. But you don't like that idea. You don't even want to hear about why it might be possible. Do you think a process like that is somehow a barrier to divine providence?

I think it requires divine providence if that is the way it worked. And then evolution is excluded.

If you were to randomly dole out incremental changes, among a population of animals within a single species you are basically introducing a cascading failure scenario. At any point that the animals transitioning fail, be it they are eaten or starve, or do not mate with the right partner, that increment is now out of play if it was the lone increment.

So, you propose the possibility that the increments are spread around simultaneously among a genetically diverse population. And did this spontaneously erupt in multiple parent pairs or did the change occur first in a single parent pair?

If simultaneously, then it is excluded from evolution. It now becomes a planned event, a completely new trait in a species that has to appear spontaneously in the genetic pool without having had to be first passed on by a parent.

If in a single pair, then its change, should there be any problems with the children, gets eliminated from that tree and does not get passed down. So now the process has to start over when we're talking about the first step in a set of required changes. Evolution doesn't have a real explanation for do-over. Perhaps that same set of parents has more kids. But unless they themselves have the trait in their genes needing to be passed down to start the transition, they can't pass it to their children. So you're stuck with the chicken and egg problem. How did the transition start and how did an animal get the first change down the path required for such a complex change?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Wow, what was in the article that was linked. A condition when some of the population produced live births and some did not. .

If I remember correctly it was a single lizard, not several. But this really isn't responsive in the context of my question. Because this is a comment on the article rather than what would be required to go from egg to live birth. There would have to be either a sudden transition in the female's reproductive organs, or it would be incremental and in which case, there would be pathological evidence through continued study of the species. Dissection of the lizard would show a difference in those organs even between members of the same species. Especially so currently since one was reputed to have given live birth and others not. That means we could actually see the difference in those organs. Do you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I remember correctly it was a single lizard, not several. But this really isn't responsive in the context of my question. Because this is a comment on the article rather than what would be required to go from egg to live birth. There would have to be either a sudden transition in the female's reproductive organs, or it would be incremental and in which case, there would be pathological evidence through continued study of the species. Dissection of the lizard would show a difference in those organs even between members of the same species. Especially so currently since one was reputed to have given live birth and others not. That means we could actually see the difference in those organs. Do you agree?

You keep making unsubstantiated claims. Why would these changes have to be sudden? You need evidence. And since you do not understand the concept and refuse to discuss it you will probably never find any.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You keep making unsubstantiated claims. Why would these changes have to be sudden? You need evidence. And since you do not understand the concept and refuse to discuss it you will probably never find any.

If they weren't sudden then how does the offspring survive? Do you or don't you agree that in the live birth lizard and the lizard that produced eggs, there would be an obvious difference in the reproductive organs?