Kay 17: ^^
Because it seems there is a direct competition between ToE and Christian Creationism. Although ToE is of natural metholdogy, I don't think atheists should be burdened with explaining its fine details.

It seems to me that atheists do not think they should be burdened with having to think at all. You claim that the ToE is of "natural methodology" YET are unable to explain several of the deficiencies contained therein that makes the entire theory suspect as an alternative explanation of christian creationism. When queried about these inconsistencies, you weave, bob, engage in ridiculous handwaving and try to change the subject.

Again let me remind you, the thread topic is not about christian creationism... that has been dealt with in 1001 topics here. The issue is about whether sexual/gender development is consistent with the ToE. That is the elephant in the room that none of you has been able to tackle in 8 pages!

Kay 17: ^^
Also, deepsight is staging an attack on the credibility of ToE on an area that has nothing to do with ToE. Everyone is an interested party.

Then exactly what does the ToE explain if it has no means of describing exactly what was the evolutionary logic behind the development of sexual dimorphism in certain species but not others?

Lol, Evolutionists are really in a huge mess on this issue. . . . .

The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction
One way for an organism to reproduce is to simply produce an identical copy of itself. Organisms that do this are able to multiply relatively quickly and easily.

Sexual reproduction, however, is much more complicated. Not only must an organism produce sperm or eggs, it must also find a member of the opposite sex, satisfy the potential partner's selection criteria, and then mate with it successfully. After all that, the organism only transmits half of its genetic makeup to the new offspring.

After the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, scientists began to ask ... if sexual reproduction is so complex and biologically expensive, then why is it so much more common than asexual reproduction?

Sexual reproduction would never have begun to evolve, and would never have continued to evolve to become as sophisticated as it is today in many plants and animals, unless it offered a significant evolutionary advantage.

As to what this advantage might be, however, is still the subject of continuing debate in the scientific community. Theories about the evolution of sex have proven to be very difficult to test experimentally, and so the answer is still very much open to speculation.


Genetic recombination

The most popular theory among respectable evolutionists is that sexual reproduction allows ‘genetic recombination’. In other words ...

• beneficial mutations from separate ancestries can be combined
• beneficial mutations can be separated from harmful mutations
• unsuccessful genetic traits can easily disappear from an existing population
Without sexual reproduction, natural selection acts upon the entire genetic makeup of an organism, but with sexual reproduction, natural selection acts upon individual genetic traits.

With sexual reproduction, less than one in four offspring will receive the best genetic traits from both parents. However, natural selection seems to be very effective at eliminating the least successful variations, especially in the harsh conditions of the wild, where only a fraction of all newly conceived offspring survive until breeding age.


Increasing the rate of evolution

Evolution generally favors organisms that evolve faster, because they can adapt more rapidly to changing conditions and compete more successfully against other variations.

The speed at which organisms evolve depends on the rate at which they mutate. However, almost all mutations are harmful. Only very rarely will a mutant be more successful at surviving and breeding than its parent.

With asexual reproduction, each ancestry is likely to accumulate many more harmful mutations than beneficial ones. And so for asexual organisms, natural selection will generally favor those with the lowest mutation rate.

However, with sexual reproduction, beneficial mutations can be separated from harmful ones, and so the reproductive systems of sexually reproducing organisms can evolve to maintain a consistently high rate of mutation.

A larger population has a higher chance of producing a beneficial mutation, but for asexually reproducing organisms, a considerable amount of time may need to pass before the mutant population grows large enough to have any chance of producing a second beneficial mutation.

Sexual reproduction removes this speed limit by allowing beneficial mutations to spread back into an existing population to be combined with other beneficial mutations, and this greatly magnifies the rate of evolution.

It is likely that without sexual reproduction, it may have taken so long for all of the right mutations to have accumulated in a single ancestry, and the rate of evolution might have been so slow, that life on earth might not have evolved past the bacterial stage.

Every complex asexual organism alive today seems to have descended at some stage in its evolutionary history from an organism that reproduced sexually.


The evolution of sex

Although bacteria simply multiply by dividing into two, they also often exchange genetic material, usually by releasing small fragments called plasmids which can be absorbed by nearby bacteria. In this way, beneficial mutations are shared. This might arguably be considered to be the earliest form of sex.

After the appearance of plants and animals in the oceans around 600 million years ago, the only practical way for these new multi-celled sea-creatures to reproduce was by releasing seeds or eggs, whose cells would then begin dividing, sticking together, and changing each time they divided, until finally forming a new adult.

The only practical time to accept potentially beneficial foreign genetic material was before the seed or egg began growing. Many sea plants and animals today release pollen or sperm into the water to be absorbed by nearby seeds or eggs, which will not begin growing until they have been fertilized.

As plants moved onto the land, their pollen was either carried by the wind or delivered directly to seeds by insects. For almost all land animals and many sea animals, sperm was more effectively delivered by injecting it into an enclosed body cavity containing eggs.

Evolution generally favors any mutation that increases the drive to find sex partners. While simple creatures like insects follow programmed patterns of behavior, more complex animals like mammals have sensitive nerves in their reproductive organs that stimulate powerful pleasure centers in their brains.


Other theories

One of the more popular alternative theories for the evolution of sex is the idea that sexual reproduction generates greater genetic diversity. This would be particularly important in rapidly changing environments, where some variations might be wiped out by new conditions while other variations might be better adapted to survive.

Perhaps the most common form of this theory is the 'Red Queen Hypothesis' which says that greater genetic variation gives sexually reproducing species better resistance to rapidly adapting diseases and parasites. As valid as this hypothesis may be, it gets an undeserved amount of attention, probably because it is one of the few theories for which there might be some valid experimental evidence.

The problem with this theory is that the connection between sexual reproduction and genetic diversity is tenuous, because the diversity of a population would depend on its mutation rate rather than its mode of reproduction. For a given mutation rate, sexual reproduction would actually decrease the diversity of a population by converging towards the most successful genetic traits. The only reason why the diversity of an asexual population would be lower is because evolution would select individuals with the lowest mutation rate in order to reduce the accumulation of harmful mutations.

One of the more outrageous alternative theories is the idea that males are essentially parasites. Sexual reproduction began when some parasitic organism began injecting its genetic material into an unwitting host in order to utilize its reproductive machinery like a virus. Over the course of evolutionary history, the parasites developed a co-evolutionary symbiosis with their hosts because of the shared genetic material and the benefits of sexual reproduction. Males may look similar to their reproductive hosts, but they are still essentially parasites.

There are other theories for the evolution of sex, but most other theories are usually either subtle re-wordings of the established theories or are otherwise too easy to refute.

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

It's just pathetic to see the extent to which this cardinal issue has the ToE quite completely lost, and even more pathetic to see how the speculated answers ALL commence with assumptions of a process already in place driving towards replication. . . which is absurd, because such assumptions then cannot explain the existence of the already existing process . . . .

Males are co-evolutionary parasites.

Nothing peson no go speculate and formulate. Chai.

Deep Sight:

Atheists who dogmatically accept the theory hook, line and sinker and insist that all answers are to be found in it's principles - including answers that have yet to be found there - must indeed be tasked to explain sore points that indicate the reverse.

That's a different circumstance, more like a misinformed religion. In this thread, you are attacking ToE itself.

Deep Sight: Well if you say that the development of sexes and sexxual reproduction has nothing to do with the ToE, then that is a wholesale concession to my point. Thank you.

No, I was referring only to Posers 1 and 2 just as you asked.

Deep Sight:

Let us be clear and honest. Straight up answers to these will do:

Honest? So you admit you aren't being so?

Deep Sight:
1. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" so far have no tested, proven or confirmed answer to these posers?

That's why they're 'opinions'. But let's not dwell on that. They have answers that are definitely being tested, not yet fully confirmed, and you even posted some of them.

Deep Sight:
2. Is it not true that the "informed opinions" have many different conflicting suggestions as their possible answers to the posers?

That's how science works. Falsification, see?

Deep Sight:
3. Is it not true that there is no proof for any of the different suggestions by "informed opinions" so far?

No, obviously, and this is more proof you know not what you speak of. Mathematical models are definitely proofs, as is DNA evidence, etc etc

This isn't blind speculation.

Deep Sight:
4. Is it not true that all the suggestions made by the "informed opinions" on the posers are entirely speculations?

DOHOHOHOHOHO

I see, falsification makes these 'entirely speculations'?

Deep Sight:
5. Is this - - - > http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

- - - written by two PHD (Microbiology & Neurobiology) Scientists: supporting my views and my contentions, not also an "informed opinion?"

O, and in answering that: the resume of the writers of that opinion, which supports my contentions wholly:

Err, obviously it is an informed opinion, even if skewed. (Well done, did you have to uproot the entire internet to find that?) And here's the wonderful abstract

xtian 'scientist':

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction. Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator? The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today. Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

Why some clowns get into sciences just so they can 'godidit' is completely beyond me...WTF is this nonsense Again, your very own article gives many, not just one, reasons to why "animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction". Even his talk of it being more costly and inefficient is nonsense, considering the reasons are advantages. Being an advantage is not reason??

But ignoring that, does this 'informed' opinion support your case?

ds:

I contend, namely that these are phenomena completely outside the purview of any evolutionary principles whatsoever, which is why they do not have any possible evolutionary explanation.

And does he speak for the scientific community? You do note I was careful to mention community, and not just the random jokers, yes? So, let's explore that

He doesn't even say it is not explained by natural selection, look at the bolded, he says EASILY. It seems he'd rather take the lazy, selfish, easy way out though; godidit.

Madrasa Clown:

[size=16pt]We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.[/size]

To his credit, he's only suggesting. He's careful to not state that there will never be a natural solution, he only states that there isn't one (and that was at the time of his writing). But here's what we have here, a scientist claiming there is no naturalistic solution......

In other words, that the solution is supernatural.

Jesus.literally.bleeping.christ.jpg. I need not tell you that is not science, I hope.......

And apparently, this oga is a well know creationist. So, does he speak for the scientific community as a whole? How many are creationists, how many hold that this spiritual mumbo jumbo is science?

wiki:

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to Samir Okasha, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham".[8]

So, good ser, I repeat, at best there are debates about the details, about how it occurred, but the scientific community has definitely not folded its arms and claimed it is impossible to explain these phenomena thoroughly via evolution, and they most certainly do not hold that the solution is supernatural. Not at all. That truly is the most unadulterated form of folly imaginable.

So, again, your clown here certainly does not represent the scientific community. Just in case you have forgotten, as I'm very sure you've come across it before, here's where they stand

wiki:

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Feel free to look up the sources.

wiki:
So is what they wrote an informed opinion or not? Hmmmmm? Or are they disqualified from having "informed opinions" by dint of their religion perhaps? Hmmmmm?

You enjoy hearing the obvious. NO. But exactly when did you get your PhD in the sciences? And more importantly, exactly when was this 'scientist' the voice of the scientific community? Not to mention, his own nonsense isn't exactly the same nonsense as yours (his might even be worse in many ways actually, but yours remains nonsense as well)

ds:
I definitely don't know what I am on about - because I am not a scientist? - - -> Even when the work of PHD Scientists and professors supports my contentions? Do they also "not know what they are on about?" Especially in the face of the fact that there is no confirmed or tested answer to the posers even among the scientific elite? And against the fact that only speculations are available even among the scientific elite?

Yes, again, you clearly don't. See all above.

And please do workout how the scientific method works...

ds:
Liar, liar, pants on fire.

In other words

ds:
La LA la la La

ds:
And what do the pros say on this matter? Hmmmmm?

That a bearded man in the sky is trolling? That they'll never find a natural solution to this??

wiki:
You can graduate to whatever you please: I certainly will be abandoning worthless brick-battings such as this one in favor of more useful and productive discussions on the improvement and spiritual growth of the inner man (don't worry about that; since we know, that for you, no such thing as an "inner man" exists: infact, it is f.oolishness, no?)

No, foo.lishness does not cut it. I'm not even sure a Shakespeare-level poet can describe just how foo.lish it is. Black man, here bringing spirituality into evolution.....

Kayi....

Once my visa to mars is approved, I'm done with you clowns......

Kayi......

I've wasted far too much time here. Back to work...

Deep Sight:

How does this answer address Poser 1 & 2 on why living organisms are self-replicating in the first place? Not to bother even moving on to the other posers, this assumption cannot scale even the first two posers alone.

Here, to Plaetton - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction/2#20539793

It doesn't. And I never said it did.

Again, thanks for the obvious.

Have you not been going on about 12 posers oh honest one? You now shift posts then declare victory? Again, why did you waste our time with 5 onwards when there are perfectly viable options in your articles? And, as kay has been pointing out and I've been ignoring for one reason or the other, your 'posers' 1 and 2 have virtually nothing (at least directly) to do with evolution. Zilch. Babu. Nada...

So, good ser, what are you on about?

Double

Deep Sight:
Lol, Evolutionists are really in a huge mess on this issue. . . . .



http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html

It's just pathetic to see the extent to which this cardinal issue has the ToE quite completely lost, and even more pathetic to see how the speculated answers ALL commence with assumptions of a process already in place driving towards replication. . . which is absurd, because such assumptions then cannot explain the existence of the already existing process . . . .

The diverse sub theories is the problem?! I don't see that as a problem, even Science sees the truth as provisional, our perspective makes other opaque.
Probably you were expecting a religiously authoritative answer. What counts is consistency with the theory. A theory is more or less an outlook, and must be consistent within. All the links you proffered, all tried to explain sexual reproduction as an advantageous course in competition, and the explanations conformed to the principles of ToE.

Chrisbenogor:
We would not want to derail this thread now and deny these esteemed Nairaland professors their space, do you not just feel good when you see people arguing over observations, facts, scientific research? I am sure the pages of Nairaland would not be enough for you to explain how clay was moulded or how clay allegorically means something else or how crawling by the serpent really meant the slow moving motion of a rolls royce phantom. . Arguing over the mechanisms of evolution does not throw the theory out of the window just yet.
As for your creation story, its a myth.......deal with it

Though i cannot stick out my neck for most of the etheist on NL other then you, for your case, i can vouch that you will be the last to consent to the truth on NL.

Your living left handedly has been seen through for what it is for a very long time now.

*Editted*

truthislight:

Though i cannot stick out my neck for most of the etheist on NL other then you, for your case, i can vouch that you will be the last to concernt to the truth on NL.

Your living left handedly has been seen through for what it is for a very long time now.

BROS ABEG DREXXX
Which one is concernt to the truth
Does this look like Nollywood? or are you a learner

Chrisbenogor:
BROS ABEG DREXXX
Which one is concernt to the truth
Does this look like Nollywood? or are you a learner

Hehehehe, ok, i must have meant to write 'consent'.

Well, if you got the msg, good, if you could not, in that case, i cannot help you.

Peace.

P.s: Leave weiting dem write for motor body enter motor, else, you will not reach your destination

truthislight:

Hehehehe, ok, i must have meant to write 'consent'.

Well, if you got the msg, good, if you could not, in that case, i cannot help you.

Peace.

P.s: Leave weiting dem write for motor body enter motor, else, you will not reach your destination

Truthisdarkness,
I dunno what you are toking oh
No be only motor body mscheeeeeew.

Chrisbenogor:
Truthisdarkness,
I dunno what you are toking oh
No be only motor body mscheeeeeew.

ok