Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution theory doesn't predict sexual reproduction, although it does explain why it has happened. If you want "solid irrefutable evidence" for anything I suggest you stop looking. But here's a plausible scenario:

Multicellular asexual organism -> bisexual organism capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction -> bisexual organism only capable of sexual reproduction -> sexually reproducing organism with male and female individuals.

Aphids and starfish are examples of multicellular organisms (animals, since RJ doesn't recognize sex of plants) that reproduce both sexually and asexually. There are many many other examples also.

There are also lots of different methods for sexual reproduction.

It's not like one day a single mutation caused a species to start having sex to reproduce.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It might be more useful to start with abiogenesis. If abiogenesis can be proven or disproven, that would pretty much prove or disprove evolution. We don't need to be looking at zillions of different critters, all we need to do is to see if evolution could have been responsible for starting life in the first place. If that can't be done, then evolution is currently relying on it's own weird version of immaculate conception.

Abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolution theory. It doesn't need to explain it for it to be valid; in fact the theory of evolution is valid beyond biology but none of the different applications need to explain the origin of the agents.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolution theory. It doesn't need to explain it for it to be valid; in fact the theory of evolution is valid beyond biology but none of the different applications need to explain the origin of the agents.

But the theory of macroevolution or as I call it - EVILution - is not valid.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't know you were trying to disprove evolution. I really don't see how its relevant. The question was whether male and female could evolve.
That evolution takes place is indisputable. Even RJHinds admits it, he just doesn't like the word so he gives it other names. So I presume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution in that all living things a ...[text shortened]... ence that it is impossible, and the quite obvious evidence that it happened (here we are).

"I didn't know you were trying to disprove evolution."
I didn't know you were trying to prove evolution.

Let me see if I can follow your reasoning... The fact that we are here is evidence we got here through evolution.
So can I say the fact that we are both here at this site is evidence we got here from another planet?

No clear evidence it is impossible, and obvious evidence it happened.
Well of course it's obvious, if you've already made up your mind. Don't let anyone disturb you with reasons that can shake your faith. Keep the faith, baby!

Evidence evolution takes place is indisputable.
True. If you ever hope to teach biology at a major university, don't let anyone think you might be entertaining doubts. Science cannot remain static if people start to think about these things.


by the way, I'm assuming you know the difference between micro and macro evolution? Rejecting one is not the same as rejecting both.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolution theory. It doesn't need to explain it for it to be valid; in fact the theory of evolution is valid beyond biology but none of the different applications need to explain the origin of the agents.

That's what I usually hear. But is it realistic to build a theory on what happens after life begins, and not include a reason for it beginning? It seems to me this leaves the door open for God creating living things or aliens seeding the planet. Excluding abiogenesis, or differentiating it from evolution, as though it has nothing to do with evolution, is like saying conception has nothing to do with where babies come from. Imagine what paternity suits might look like if first cause could be ignored in the same way... "Yeah, the kid looks like me and DNA testing says it's mine, but you can't prove I'm the father if I don't acknowledge responsibility for his conception."

Originally posted by lemon lime
Let me see if I can follow your reasoning... The fact that we are here is evidence we got here through evolution.

No. The fact that we are here is evidence of abiogenesis.
We know life appeared on earth billions of years ago, not long after it cooled down enough to have liquid water. I am not claiming this is conclusive evidence of abiogenesis, but abiogenesis remains the best explanation to date.

So can I say the fact that we are both here at this site is evidence we got here from another planet?
Yes, it is. It is just not very good evidence because there is currently a more likely explanation - abiogenesis.

Don't let anyone disturb you with reasons that can shake your faith. Keep the faith, baby!
It has nothing to do with faith. I have no religious reasons for thinking abiogenesis too place. I simply think it is the best explanation for the evidence. If new evidence is presented I would happily change my views. If for example evidence was found on Mars that life existed there prior to earth, I would then consider panspermia or at least the possibility that life on earth came from Mars. Still, abiogenesis would have had to occurred at some point. Its simply an unavoidable conclusion. Either life has existed forever, or at some point it got stared from non-living material.

If you ever hope to teach biology at a major university, don't let anyone think you might be entertaining doubts. Science cannot remain static if people start to think about these things.
Actually if you ever want to learn anything in biology, you have to at least realize that genetic information changes from generation to generation (more so in the case of sexually reproducing life forms as is the subject of this thread). That is evolution by definition. Like it or not, it takes place. If you dispute it, then you probably mean something else by the word. What is your definition?

by the way, I'm assuming you know the difference between micro and macro evolution? Rejecting one is not the same as rejecting both.
I know roughly what some people mean by it. How do you define them?
I believe earlier you said that you can't believe new genes can arise. Is this correct? Is this true of virus' too, as they are very fast evolving so its easier to give examples from every day life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. The fact that we are here is evidence of abiogenesis.
We know life appeared on earth billions of years ago, not long after it cooled down enough to have liquid water. I am not claiming this is conclusive evidence of abiogenesis, but abiogenesis remains the best explanation to date.

[b]So can I say the fact that we are both here at this site is evi us' too, as they are very fast evolving so its easier to give examples from every day life.

Yes, virus' are fast evolving, if by evolving you mean natural selection. If you mean virus' can evolve into bacteria or something other than a virus, then no, I don't believe that can happen. Speciation is the only means I know of that can cause an organism to "evolve" into another organism. But that's not evolution in the sense that new information has been added. In fact, it you look at information theory you'll see there is nothing to suggest new information can spontaneously arise in (inorganic) matter. This information by way exists independently from the material it somehow arises from, but at the same time it is able to use the information contained within the material it uses. As far as the information contained in inorganic matter goes, what you see is what you get. So when considering how life started, the question naturally comes up which came first... the information, or the end result? Or were both created at the same time?

Think about it, no matter how simple we image that first cell is, the first living cell would need to come with everything it needs to survive along with an information center that can instruct the cell what to do and when to do it, and then before the cell dies it can instruct the cell to replicate itself and pass all of that information along. I've seen the theories that try to resolve this problem by suggesting simple strands of RNA could (in theory) replicate themselves under some very extraordinary circumstances. That hasn't been demonstrated, but who cares? If punctuated equilibrium can patch up a hole in evolution without showing how, then strands of RNA can help to patch up holes in abiogenesis.

What I believe or don't believe is irrelevant. I became weary of trying to defend a theory that walks on no legs, flys with no wings, and lays eggs with nothing in them. So if I seem foolish for abandoning this bird then so be it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, virus' are fast evolving, if by evolving you mean natural selection. If you mean virus' can evolve into bacteria or something other than a virus, then no, I don't believe that can happen. Speciation is the only means I know of that can cause an organism to "evolve" into another organism. But that's not evolution in the sense that new information has ...[text shortened]... ggs with nothing in them. So if I seem foolish for abandoning this bird then so be it.

And ironically, evolution proceeds at its own pace despite your disagreement. And the rest of the creationist crowd. Doesn't matter a whit what they believe, evolution goes on anyway.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And ironically, evolution proceeds at its own pace despite your disagreement. And the rest of the creationist crowd. Doesn't matter a whit what they believe, evolution goes on anyway.

And ironically, no amount of evidence or reasoning to the contrary will be enough for you to believe otherwise. Doesn't matter a whit whether evolution is true or not, you will see evolution proceeding at its own pace.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And ironically, no amount of evidence or reasoning to the contrary will be enough for you to believe otherwise. Doesn't matter a whit whether evolution is true or not, you will see evolution proceeding at its own pace.

I suspect that sonhouse and I will disagree on Evilution until the day we die. At our age that may not be too long.

HalleluYah !!! Prasie the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I suspect that sonhouse and I will disagree on Evilution until the day we die. At our age that may not be too long.

HalleluYah !!! Prasie the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

I don't know if sonhouse realises this, but his last statement here was nothing more than a declaration of faith. All that was missing was "And there is no God, but even if there is he has nothing to do with any of this."

Even so, as it stands it's enough for him to pass go, collect $200, and apply for a teaching job at any liberal university. He has passed the heresy test.

Originally posted by RJHinds
At our age...

Are you telling me sonhouse belongs to the fraternity of old farts? I assumed he was much younger.

I didn't know I belonged to that fraternity either. I thought I was middle aged. Apparently I can't be middle age if my kids are middle age... who made up THAT stupid rule?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Speciation is the only means I know of that can cause an organism to "evolve" into another organism.

Thats because you don't realize how loosely defined the word 'species' is. Anyone who makes a concrete statement using the word 'species' is practically bound to be wrong.

But that's not evolution in the sense that new information has been added.
So you believe speciation is a result of loss of information? Doesn't this mean that all species would be loosing information over time and in the case of fast reproducing species they would be quite short of information very quickly.

In fact, it you look at information theory you'll see there is nothing to suggest new information can spontaneously arise in (inorganic) matter.
Please define 'information' before we proceed, because by standard definitions that statement is blatantly wrong. Every possible configuration of matter is information and it changes all the time thus new information arises all the time.

This information by way exists independently from the material it somehow arises from, but at the same time it is able to use the information contained within the material it uses. As far as the information contained in inorganic matter goes, what you see is what you get. So when considering how life started, the question naturally comes up which came first... the information, or the end result? Or were both created at the same time?
Well you appear to define information by how it is used, so obviously the information is instantaneously instantiated when the user appears, just as a 'beautiful landscape' only exists when a human being sees it and recognizes it as such.

What I believe or don't believe is irrelevant. I became weary of trying to defend a theory that walks on no legs, flys with no wings, and lays eggs with nothing in them. So if I seem foolish for abandoning this bird then so be it.
The problem is that there is no alternative. That life is here is indisputable. That I personally don't know how it got here, is also true. That it must have come from non-life at some time in the past is clear. Exactly how it happened, we don't yet know. That it cannot have happened is not proven by claiming ignorance which seems to be your sole argument.
You also seem to be making the error of thinking evolution depends on abiogenesis.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you telling me sonhouse belongs to the fraternity of old farts? I assumed he was much younger.

I didn't know I belonged to that fraternity either. I thought I was middle aged. Apparently I can't be middle age if my kids are middle age... who made up THAT stupid rule?

Maybe I should let him speak for himself on that one. It seems his main goal on here is to criticize me, as it is. There is no need in antagonizing him more.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe I should let him speak for himself on that one. It seems his main goal on here is to criticize me, as it is. There is no need in antagonizing him more.

The Instructor

I am a proud member of the card carrying old farts club! I think I am older than most anyone here at 72. And it looks like, knock on plastic, I will be around for a long time to come to impale religious fantasy.