Reply to "introduction of evolution..."

“Never in all my years of studying biology have I seen/heard anyone claim that mankind was once asexual!”

It was in response to gbrooks9 statement “There seems to be plenty of information and evidence on the development of TWO-GENDER reproduction. Worms are examples of both members of a mating pair are DOUBLE-gendered” that suggests male and female humans came from a former two-gender (human) being.

The main reason I can’t believe that humans evolved from the same “soup” as every other life form is that I see the evolution of both male and female reproductive systems as a bit too fantastic. For such an evolution to happen both the male and female reproductive systems would have had to evolve entirely independent, but yet perfectly matched to each other. The explanation that the human(oid) somehow had reproduced while this “male” and “female” reproductive system “evolved” could only be explained by the species first being asexual (if that makes sense).

“I’ve never read/heard any evolutionary biologist say that “every example” of anything must “evolve identically”. You lost me on that. Could you explain further?”

What I was referring to is for male and female of a species to “evolve” (as opposed to being created) both the male and female would have had to evolved independently but yet perfectly complimentary to each other. I find the odds of that happening for one, much less millions of species a bit too great. Certainly not impossible given God’s role in the matter, I just find it far easier to believe that God created separate species, male and female, the odds are so much in favor of the latter.

The mention of “worms still being worms” was simply to worms did not evolve to a higher state of being, they are still worms. Much like the proverbial "why are there still monkey’s if we evolved from monkey’s

“what are you assuming that “macro evolution” is based on?”

Random selection as opposed to specific species being created as a specific species

“Why would God create a biosphere packed full of a history of life on earth which never happened?”

God didn’t

“Evolution is too amazing to be real…”

If you believe that all species, both male and female of each species evolved purely from a process of random selection, then for sure there must be a God because that would be an astounding miracle. You would also have to accept that that God gave no consideration whatsoever as to what the end result of his “creation” would be. Personally I like to think that God had something more specific in mind for his creation

If creation was just a mere crap-shoot I fail to understand what the motivation for creation was in the first place. If we are just a fluke in God’s mindless creation, where do we draw the line as to what is good and what is evil? How could evil exist if God simply turned mad scientist and let the cards fall where they may? If such was the case, wouldn’t whatever path creation took be acceptable and good?

JBWright … I think you have things confused.

This quote of yours (above) is from one of your EARLIER posts … not from something I wrote.

"The Bible says “a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day”, so who knows what a “day” refers to as written in the account of creation.

“Worms are examples of both members of a mating pair are DOUBLE-gendere” And worms are STILL worms. I used to think there was no God that was relevant, but the more I learn the more I realize it takes more faith to believe that all life evolved from the proverbial “primordial soup”

The reference to 2 gendered worms is an example of how simpler creatures had various gender strategies for reproduction !.. not humans!

I did write this: “Worms are examples of both members of a mating pair are DOUBLE-gender” But nothing like this was applied to humans or any mammals…

By the time life forms had arrived as mammals… mammals were clearly single-gendered…

The whole concept of 2-gendered reproduction is to help promote genetic diversity in each generation … those life forms that didn’t have enough diversity created in each generation were vulnerable to extinction events if ecological factors changed more quickly than the gene pool could.

George

Hello Jeffery,

Can you kindly explain what you mean here? I ask because “random selection” is an oxymoron in the context of evolution.

If you think that male and female evolved anew with each species, I’d say that a basic understanding of both biology and evolution is lacking.

2 Likes

What I mean is this, for a reproductive system that requires both a male and a female, what was the means of reproduction whilst the two seperate male and female reproductive systems "evolved? How did the male and female reproductive systems of the same specie’s evolve idealy suited to each other, one not knowing of the other? They are clearly two entirely different systems but yet complement each other perfecly.

As to whether or not said systems evolved and then “moved” into various species or each species evolved its system independently is irrelevant, at least until the seperate but idealy suited male and female systems are explained. For the male reproductive system to evolve perfectly suited to the female reproduction system, the one would have to have “knowlege” of how the other system works/will work once evolved.

“By the time life forms had arrived as mammals… mammals were clearly single-gendered…”

Well that just completely avoids the entire question I posed in the first place. How did the male and female reproductive systems evolve as two distinct systems but yet perfectly suited to each other?

You are at best making the assumption that somehow two gendered reproduction came along to “help promote genetic diversity in each generation”. And again, completely avoid the question of “HOW” two independent systems evolved, one perfectly suited to the other. The allegation that two gendered reproduction came along to “help promote diversity in generations” is nothing more than what you were told and you didn’t bother to think beyond that

If diversity were a “goal” of evolution, evolution could have created said diversity far more simplistic in the “old” asexual system. You fail to explain any reason for or the HOW or WHY of the two gender reproduction. If you disagree with my use of the word “goal” in the process of evolution, then you contradict yourself in suggesting two gender reproduction began as a way to “promote diversity”.

What I quted before was not something I said however it could have been what someone else said. I am new to this site and it functions differently than any other site I have been part of. Sorry about any confusion

The emergence of TWO genders, and other accidents of “diversity”, happened around the time of worms…

You do know that some species of worms have BOTH genders, right? And for them, mating is a MUTUAL exchange of gametes.

All it would take is for a variety to emerge where, due to a less than perfect division of chromosomes, one kind of worm suppressed one of the genders, and became especially effective in a given gender.

George

You might want to check out this post about misconceptions about evolution.

It is fine to come discuss your reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory and ask how any Christian could possibly accept it, but it might be a good idea to get a clearer idea of what you are rejecting first. You probably are not going to get the most accurate picture of what the theory of evolution actually claims if you only get your information from people/organizations whose main reason for existing is to mock it. Just like you won’t get a very fair picture of God or the Bible if all you read is Richard Dawkins.

1 Like

The link you provided states: “Evolution begins with careful observations (e.g., I found this bone in this layer of rock); then hypotheses are offered for why those specific observations were made (e.g., the bone belonged to a species that lived 65 million years ago); as the hypotheses are developed, they give rise to predictions of other observations…”

This is the type of reasoning that leaves scientists such as myself, unsatisfied and becoming suspicious of claims made for evolution. Just to illustrate, if anyone finds a bone anywhere, we would not need a hypothesis - it is a plain observation based on the knowledge that bones are derived from a broad class of animals. Dating the rocks and what have you does not identify any species, but be that as it may, developing a hypothesis based on scientific work requires more than simple observations and descriptive/narrative outcomes. What can be verified from such observations - nothing unless we degenerate to “travel in time” arguments to make clear observations (first hand) and classifications based on a well developed data base that may take years based on species the observer can identify and study first hand.

I am not advocating a lengthy exchange with anyone regarding evolution in whatever form people promulgate - I am making a straightforward statement showing where discussions on evolution suffer from outlooks that within a highly developed scientific context, appear banal.

That is not ALL it would take. Asexual reproduction generates offspring that are genetically identical to a single parent. This already makes a non-identical offspring, such as an asexual species that suppresses one gender to specialize in another suspect. An offspring that has one gender suppressed would not be identical, or are we to make the assumption that the author didn’t quite understand “identical”. Though it could be, this wouldn’t be my argument.

My argument is that the species would, over millions of years have two new groups of individuals, a male and female, this according to your statement. Now over the course of millions years, members of these two new groups/genders would have to evolve the absent male and female sexual organs, male and female respectively. Then all the while this evolution is taking place, the now seperate(ing) male and female of the species, must somehow continue to reproduce.

If a member of the species produced an offspring that had a suppressed gender, it would just die off as it would not be able to reproduce, their would be no mate. There would also be no sexual organs to reproduce sexually even if it did have a mate. Am I to believe that over the course of time, these gender suppressed offspring somehow developed the neccesary sexual organs even though each specific example could only have had a very short life, one that likely did not have any connection to any simularly evolving gender?

How is it that the evolving male of the species and the separately evolving female or the species happend to evolve sexual reproductive organs that were perfectly suited to each other? Niether of which had any knowlege of how the other was developing?

It is not enough that one kind of worm suppressed one of the genders, and became especially effective in a given gender, each gender still had no way of interacting with the other. This also demands that each developing gender continued to reproduce asexually whilst forming the required organs to reproduce sexually, this makes no sense since there would be no motivation to develop a second reproduction system.

Sexual reproduction is hypothesized to start in a single-celled eukaryote that was a common ancestor for plants, fungi, and animals. Do you think each individual species had to evolve sexual reproduction separately? That is not what it proposed. In a single celled organism, it wasn’t a matter of developing complicated compatible reproductive organs separately.

Here is a thread where the question is addressed by a scientist, with links to an explanation:

JB, I don’t see the point of investing increasingly large chunks of my time on someone who knows less about evolution than I do …when, there is virtually nothing that you can be told that you will believe.

Below is an image of 2 worms INTERACTING with each other … mutually… both male and female modes fully operational.

All that has to happen is for one of the genders to be genetically suppressed… and you instantly have a single gendered variant.

George

Okay, I did a quick search on asexual reproduction and did not find any specifics on whether or not a single worm had both male and female organs externally, so I wasn’t sure if a worm that could reproduce asexually could also reproduce sexually. That is why I went ahead with that argument. Thanks for posting the diagram, it is informative.

However there still lies the issue of these reproductive systems forming over millions of years whilst the specimen already has a means of reproducing, and surviving with said reproduction over millions of years. If the specimen survived long enough to evololve such a complex reproduction system, the idea of sexual reproduction for the sake of more robust offspring through diversity rather falls flat.

Whether each species evolved their own reproductive systems or reproductive systems evolved their own species (trying to imagine that in my head) is irrelevant, either way the complex systems had to evolove alongside an already, and obviously full functioning alternative form of reproduction.

With worms … some very tiny … all things are possible…

Do you understand why your statement sounds like an example of the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy?

I recently had a reader complain to me that “Bilateral symmetry could never have evolved on its own. For such mirror-like symmetry to develop would require a conscious awareness of how the other mirror-image is growing!” I initially thought that the writer was being sarcastic and making a joke. She wasn’t. To her, all symmetries require some sort of intelligent supervision or at least an internal awareness of a goal.

For those of us with some basic knowledge of how biological structures develop, her naivete seemed nearly child-like and simply a lack of experience with chemistry and biology. But to her, the idea of bilateral symmetry naturally arising from natural processes was “a bit too fantastic.”

In discussing how to be instruct her, we came up with the familiar children’s art project of producing snowflakes with sheets of paper and scissors. By folding the paper just once and then cutting out notches, this relatively mindless process (i.e., a simple algorithm of sorts), the paper can be unfolded when finished and found to be perfectly bilaterally symmetrical. If the paper is folded in half, and then folded in half again-and again, notches scissored into the tightly folded paper will create a wonderful example of radial symmetry in the final unfolded product. No tedious comparisons and planning of the two mirror-images is necessary. One sequence of simple processes produces bilateral symmetry in the result.

So I would assert to you that if you were to study the biological processes behind the complementary nature of male-female reproductive morphology, you would find the evolutionary processes involved in their development to be just as simple and evident as the scissors cutting folded paper analogy.

I often hear the “I just don’t believe it because it is just too unbelievable” argument against evolution—and I often declared it myself long ago when I was an adamant anti-evolutionist debater. Yet, that’s the advantage of careful study and growing older and observing more of the world. Knowledge is power as well as explanation.

I used to think that VLSI chip design methodologies sounded too complex and difficult to ever realize in large-scale manufacturing. But once I learned about the step-by-step processes and the underlying physics, the realities unfolded before my eyes. This kind of self-education has been the eventual undoing of so many of my own personal Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies.

I would be very interested in seeing how you went about collecting the relevant numbers and quantifying those odds. Please explain. (I have just enough experience in statistics to know how difficult odds calculations can be for most people.)

For many years after first studying the mechanisms of evolutionary biology, I had a visceral feeling in my gut that even a trillion years would not be enough time for significant diversification of the biosphere and for textbook “macroevolution” on a large scale to take place. It just seemed too far-fetched to me. Why was that the case? In part, I had been exposed to too many “What are the odds?” arguments from “creation science” ministries who pretended that the processes involved were “completely random”. Of course, I eventually realized that evolution is not at all as random as many non-scientist detractors assume. But more importantly, I began writing problem-solving software which utilized evolutionary algorithms. (Most laypersons misunderstand that term so I recommend those without a computer science background Google it and discover what it is and what it isn’t before being confused by it.) I soon was totally blown away by the ways in which “unintelligent computer code” in the form of veru simple algorithms could solve extremely complex problems in ways that my brain on its own could not. That led me to investigate projects like AVIDA, which prior to my own programming of evolutionary algorithms had never really clicked with me.

The following rough FAQ from the Bible.and.Science.Forum was among my first attempts to explain this eureka moment epiphany. I append it without further context or explanation, but hope it will be of value to those who struggle with the idea of “unintelligent” biochemical processes producing complex structures as described in the Theory of Evolution:

Everyone should experiment with some very simple evolutionary algorithms, such as:

http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

…where random configurations of wheels and polygons are put through simulations in a 2D world of simple physics equations. Each “test” is evaluated and saved so that the random experiments produce better and better solutions over time. Biological evolution is remarkably similar. (If you find that hard to believe, you need to do more experiments with more evolutionary algorithm examples online.)

I didn’t have a full grasp of the failure of “the presence of complexity requires the involvement of intelligence” argument until I started writing evolutionary algorithms. My sense of intuition, that inner voice of what does and doesn’t make sense, didn’t really grasp the fact that simplicity really can produce complexity until I saw that I could write a program using very simple rules to solve problems where the eventual solution was something quite complex—and something which I never anticipated when I first wrote the program.

Of course, Young Earth Creationist deniers of evolution would tell me “You wrote intelligence into the program! After all, a program can only do what the programmer instructed it to do.” (That popular mantra is quite false, by the way.) They refuse to understand that I did not write a lot of intelligence into my programs. I didn’t even think much about possible solutions at all. I simply told the program how to apply the simple rules in countless “tries”–and then sat back and watched what solutions my programs produced. I found that my incredibly simple algorithms could quickly solve problems that I couldn’t have solved in a lifetime on my own. Only after I had used such programs for quite a while did I realize that simplicity can indeed produce complexity without requiring lots of intelligence. My sense of intuition had gradually changed from repeated obsevations. Now evolution feels right to me in ways that it didn’t for much of my life. My Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies once again collapsed in the face of knowledge and experience.

So I have great sympathy for those who think complexity in and of itself demands that an intelligent agent directly implemented a solution to a problem. I can’t expect them to write their own evolutionary algorithms but they can get some of the “feel” for them with an on-line animation like the genetic car simulation. It shows how just a few simple rules from physics can “evolve” efficient car designs:

http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

Many such program exists on-line and I think this is one of the best ways to help a layperson grasp how something as “blind” [not necessarily] and “random” [but not really] as natural processes can produce amazing solutions to the problem of survival and reproduction.

A colleague brought your post to my attention in hopes that I could explain what you were saying. I confess: I’m stumped. You seem to be assuming that each species originally existed in some “primitive” form and from there evolved into something more complex, instead of being part of an entire Tree of Life. I recommend you investigate the concept of Common Descent as well as evolutionary processes in general. Otherwise, you are going to restrict yourself to these straw man arguments which nobody else will recognize or understand.

Also, if I recall your previous posts correctly, you appear to retain some of the ancient concept of scala naturae and are confusing it with the Theory of Evolution.

And while I’m at it, I should also dispel the popular “It’s still a worm” aka “It’s still a bacteria” aka “It’s still a finch” mantra.

As a linguist, it has always annoyed me when Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and friends say concerning the famous nylon-eating flavobacterium evolution example: “Yes, but it is still a bacteria!” That’s like denying every example of animals evolving with “Yes, but it is still an animal.” Obviously, it is a “move the goalposts” tactic. One simply chooses a higher level LANGUAGE CATEGORY OF WORD-GROUPING. That is, for any example of evolution, if it is an example of species evolving to produce a new species, just argue: “Yes, but it is still a member of that same genus.” Same with an example of a genus evolving to give rise to a new genus: “Yes, but it is still a member of that same family. The family hasn’t changed.”

And that’s why whenever I hear “That’s not evolution. It’s still a bacterium” or “It’s still a finch”, I’ve started using it’s ultimate derivation: “That’s not evolution. After all, it was still just a eukaryote becoming another eukaryote! So no real change came through evolution at all!” Really? Is that the absurdity the denialists honestly think is a sound argument?

I’ll state it again: The"still a eukaryote" wildcard argument means that you can ALWAYS deny evolution in one grand dismissal by saying, “Nothing really evolves or changes. It will always be just a different kind of eukaryote!”

1 Like

Mirror-like symmetry? Sounds as though you are describing Asexual reproduction, this is about sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction, the kind of reproduction that allegedly evolved to support a more DIVERSE offspring? As opposed to simply producing identical offspring, did you read my post? I can’t see that you have.

Because you are better at figuring odds than me?
Did you read my post?

Simple questions:
Q. Sexual reproduction evolved for what reason?
A. To diversify offspring for a more robust chance of survival

Q. How long does it take for a new biological system to evolve?
A. Millions of years

Q. If the “old” system reproduced offspring for millions of years, was it not already robust?
A.

How is it that I made this assumption whilst stating “Whether each species evolved their own reproductive systems or reproductive systems evolved their own species is irrelevant” ?

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.