pz

This is nonsense. I'm a "thinking person", and the generation of a sexual reproductive system looks relatively easy to me. The mistake this person is making seems to be his assumption that everything had to go from one simple phenotype to two people, one with a penis and testicles and the other with vagina and ovaries, all in one magic step. It's the typical mistake made by someone with almost no knowledge of natural history and total incomprehension of the variety of sexual strategies followed by other organisms.

Dr Rick

"I don't get why some people have a vagina, and others a penis; therefore, god exists!"

Genitals are no more mysterious than eyes or other organs, and their existence is, lucky for us, not just fun, but adaptive. The ability to share and exchange genetic material provides an advantage over organisms that can't screw, because it allows variations and exchanges not possible without a mate. Sexual reproduction is not anywhere near "100%"; most copulation is inefficient and fails to produce viable off-spring, a good sign that the design was not intelligent, but merely adaptive.

Oolon Colluphid

D'oh! Of course!

And so the additions keep rolling in...

Oolon

DamagedGoods

"The argument from sex?" Seems there should be a funnier name lurking here though.

livius drusus

How about the argument from Eternal?

Wyz_sub10

I think the points is that while some questions remain unanswered, answering those questions with "god did it" is only a temporary stop-gap.

When these questions are answered, what role is left for the "god of the gaps"? Therefore, rather than assigning god to the job, we admit we do not know at present and continue to seek answers.

scigirl

Ha ha! l-bow posted his "argument" (I use the term loosely) at
July 2, 2003 07:16 AM. Then at July 2, 2003 07:56 AM, he posted,
l-bow - most of us here have real lives and jobs, and don't actually read the forum every 30 minutes. :banghead:

scigirl

l-bow

Here's what that guy said when a posted a reply. Actually it was a thread in t.o I posted a link to.


*******************************begin quote



Two things I got out of this thread...

1) There's serious posters and there's "god bashers" just like there are here. I don't know why. I assumed there would be a rational discussion there. It was a little more informed than this one, but it still had its share of people who didn't put their brain in gear before then engaged their mouths. Just like in here.

2) Interesting theory concerning the hermaphrodites and earthworms. The problem I have with it? Survival of the Fittest. The Evolutionist's mantra. IF this is all about the Survival of the Fittest, then the worms that lost their "maleness" would no longer be the fittest. Obviously those worms that could give AND receive DNA information would be the ones with the edge. So why is it that the one that was NOT the fittest suddenly is the norm for all of higher biology? It totally goes against the whole backbone of evolution. Hermaphrodites should be the norm, because they have the advantage.

Nice theory, Darwin, but I don't buy it.

"Male and female, He created them."

************************** end quote

So, what advantage does separate males and females have over hermaphrodites?

Jack the Bodiless

No need to carry two sets of reproductive organs, for starters.

Also, specialization of roles. Males can fertilize many females, so fewer are needed: the rest are "expendable" and can become defenders of the females and young (epitomized in our own tradition of "women and children first" in disasters). Females can specialize the other way, in cautious behavior.

Also, I presume there's a danger of self-fertilization in hermaphrodites. Male/female is less incestuous and makes good mixing of genes more likely.

Lemna

Actually, that's not true all the time. It takes a lot of resources for one individual to be both a mom and a dad -- you've got to make sperm and disperse it, AND make eggs and put resources into developing offspring.

If resources are plentiful, then you can afford to be both a mom and a dad. But if resources are limited, it makes sense to dump one of those roles and focus all your attention on just being one sex. If you're just a mom, you can put more energy into developing offspring, thus increasing the chances that your offspring will make it. If you're just a dad, you can afford to make a ton of pollen and spread it all over the place, and that makes it more likely that you'll have offspring.

I hope this makes sense. I guess I should go introduce myself in the coffeehouse! I've been lurking for a while now, but haven't posted because I haven't able to add anything yet!


Lemna