Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 07-03-2003, 09:53 PM

A cell "gains" or "loses" chromosomes by existing chromosomes splitting or fusing. This suggests that those chromosomes can still match with the originals -- at first.

But if the chromosomes start becoming too different in structure, "hybrid sterility" can indeed result. Resulting in the splitting of one species into two.

Doubting Didymus · 07-03-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normus
Along similiar lines, i dont quite understand why even if in theory evolution is possible, why a new species would gain or lose a set of chromosome pairs making it impossible for it to mate with any other species that came from a common species.

Speciation does involve chromosome alterations sometimes, but it's not by any means a neccesary part of speciation. A population can become slowly incompatible with other populations just by normal genetic change within the chromosomes.

l-bow · 07-04-2003, 01:47 AM

More rediculous stuff posted :

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...77#post2511777

l-bow · 07-04-2003, 04:02 AM

"ridiculous" not "rediculous"

Oolon Colluphid · 07-04-2003, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Speciation does involve chromosome alterations sometimes, but it's not by any means a neccesary part of speciation. A population can become slowly incompatible with other populations just by normal genetic change within the chromosomes.

And conversely, just to note that there are some perfectly happily interbreeding populations (ie the same species) with different numbers of chromosomes.

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 07-04-2003, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
So again, the theory is flawed on multiple points. Yet peopl ewould rather grasp onto this errant way of thinking, rather than acknowledge a Creator that they would then have to answer to.

I must be getting old, I missed this.

Let me be blunt (and, for the regulars, somewhat repetitive -- sorry!): any 'creator' stupid enough to give eyes that don't work to creatures that do not need eyes, and to route the laryngeal nerve the way it is, and a host of other examples, is one that will be bloody well answering to me if I should ever encounter it. To be blunter: the creator does not exist, or is an idiot.

I will be happy to discuss this -- at whatever length necessary -- in another thread, if you wish.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 07-04-2003, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
Stumped? I read in talk.origins that the evolution of sex is one the difficult problems of evolution.

So you would actually welcome a god-of-the-gaps, then? Fine. Watch it vanish in a puff of logic when the problem is resolved.

TTFN, Oolon

l-bow · 07-04-2003, 05:12 AM

Note: This is what a creationist on another forum posted.

Start quote:
------------------------------------------------

(Post #346)

Two things (and no insults):

First, you might grow up with Christian instruction, or exposed to Christianity, but you can't "grow up Christian." You have to be able to understand and make a consious decision to choose Christ. It seems like you never did that. Going to church doesn't make you Christian any more than going to the ocean makes me a fish. It's a choice.

Second, stand by your tail thing if you want to. "Looking" like a tail is irrelevant. As a fetus, we look very similar to Roswell aliens. It doesn't give me belief that we are one.

Okay, three things. My one rebuttal on evolution:
I stand by my belief that evolution is responsible for variations within a species. We have dual sets of genes in us, dominant and recessive. Using eyes for an example we can have either two dominant genes (brn-brn), two recessive genes (blu-blu), or one of each (brn blu). It is this way for everything that makes us: our tendencies towards height, weight, hair, teeth, skin color, breast size, schlong size, whatever.... On the slim chance that a recessive gene is bred out of a species (there's a lot of blue eyed people around considering it's a recessive trait), it doesn't change that into another species. And let's say that all the blue eyed genes were gone and there were nothing but brown eyes left... blue eyes couldn't just pop out of nowhere. They're gone from the gene pool.
BUT... I can not believe that evolution is responsible for a change in species (origin of new species) much less the origin of life. I addressed this before, but apparently I wasn't clear enough.

There are creatures with no eyes and creatures with eyes. Somewhere in the middle of that, there had to be creatures with partial eyes. For it to have evolved those partial eyes, the partial eyes had to have been a benefit to it somehow. If a partial eye, or proto-eye, was simply a light sensitive spot on a creature, and the more sensitive it was the more of a benefit it was, I could see how you might get out of it a very sensitive spot. But an eye?
Anyway, back to the point at hand... a light sensitive spot as a transitional organ is one thing, but what benefit is there in a partially developed sexual system? There isn't. It is only beneficial if there are two systems, male and female, in the same species, that appeared in the same geographical location, at the very same time, in creatures that were not identical (so variation within the species would be able to take place) but in the same species... which, if they were asexual, can't happen as they are all identical in genetic makeup if they're asexual.

I will say it again: to any thinking person, the inability of evolution to generate a functioning sexual reproductive system where there was not one by passing thru a partial state, is not virtually impossible, it is TOTALLY impossible. 100%. No "near infinity." It can't happen, period.

If you believe in evolution, then you're putting this fact aside, and you're choosing not to believe the theory of Creation on the simple reason that you don't want to. Because the "facts" of evolution don't hold water.

I would like to hear how you can believe in evolution as the basis for the appearance of new species, and address how you handle that insurmountable wall of sexual reproduction. C'mon, as Lancelot Link used to say, "What's your theory, Darwin?"

I know my answer. "Male and female, He made them." That's how sexual reproduction was added to an asexual environment. It was placed there by an outside influence.

l-bow · 07-04-2003, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
So you would actually welcome a god-of-the-gaps, then? Fine. Watch it vanish in a puff of logic when the problem is resolved.

TTFN, Oolon

Huh? I was puzzled by the non-response.

DamagedGoods · 07-04-2003, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
If you figure that it had to happen with both sexes, in the same species, in the same geographical location, in the exact time span, with no outside interference, and these two mutations were compatible and viable?

I think you're assuming that reproductive organs have to be split up between sexes. It is my understanding that there are quite a few species that can reproduce either sexually or asexually because individual organisms can carry both sets of reproductive organs.

Environmental stress could lead to a particular type of reproduction to become more advantageous to survival, like this:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993603

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 09:53 PM	#11
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	A cell "gains" or "loses" chromosomes by existing chromosomes splitting or fusing. This suggests that those chromosomes can still match with the originals -- at first. But if the chromosomes start becoming too different in structure, "hybrid sterility" can indeed result. Resulting in the splitting of one species into two.

07-04-2003, 01:47 AM	#13
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	More rediculous stuff posted : http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...77#post2511777

07-04-2003, 04:02 AM	#14
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	"ridiculous" not "rediculous"

07-04-2003, 05:12 AM	#18
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	Note: This is what a creationist on another forum posted. Start quote: ------------------------------------------------ (Post #346) Two things (and no insults): First, you might grow up with Christian instruction, or exposed to Christianity, but you can't "grow up Christian." You have to be able to understand and make a consious decision to choose Christ. It seems like you never did that. Going to church doesn't make you Christian any more than going to the ocean makes me a fish. It's a choice. Second, stand by your tail thing if you want to. "Looking" like a tail is irrelevant. As a fetus, we look very similar to Roswell aliens. It doesn't give me belief that we are one. Okay, three things. My one rebuttal on evolution: I stand by my belief that evolution is responsible for variations within a species. We have dual sets of genes in us, dominant and recessive. Using eyes for an example we can have either two dominant genes (brn-brn), two recessive genes (blu-blu), or one of each (brn blu). It is this way for everything that makes us: our tendencies towards height, weight, hair, teeth, skin color, breast size, schlong size, whatever.... On the slim chance that a recessive gene is bred out of a species (there's a lot of blue eyed people around considering it's a recessive trait), it doesn't change that into another species. And let's say that all the blue eyed genes were gone and there were nothing but brown eyes left... blue eyes couldn't just pop out of nowhere. They're gone from the gene pool. BUT... I can not believe that evolution is responsible for a change in species (origin of new species) much less the origin of life. I addressed this before, but apparently I wasn't clear enough. There are creatures with no eyes and creatures with eyes. Somewhere in the middle of that, there had to be creatures with partial eyes. For it to have evolved those partial eyes, the partial eyes had to have been a benefit to it somehow. If a partial eye, or proto-eye, was simply a light sensitive spot on a creature, and the more sensitive it was the more of a benefit it was, I could see how you might get out of it a very sensitive spot. But an eye? Anyway, back to the point at hand... a light sensitive spot as a transitional organ is one thing, but what benefit is there in a partially developed sexual system? There isn't. It is only beneficial if there are two systems, male and female, in the same species, that appeared in the same geographical location, at the very same time, in creatures that were not identical (so variation within the species would be able to take place) but in the same species... which, if they were asexual, can't happen as they are all identical in genetic makeup if they're asexual. I will say it again: to any thinking person, the inability of evolution to generate a functioning sexual reproductive system where there was not one by passing thru a partial state, is not virtually impossible, it is TOTALLY impossible. 100%. No "near infinity." It can't happen, period. If you believe in evolution, then you're putting this fact aside, and you're choosing not to believe the theory of Creation on the simple reason that you don't want to. Because the "facts" of evolution don't hold water. I would like to hear how you can believe in evolution as the basis for the appearance of new species, and address how you handle that insurmountable wall of sexual reproduction. C'mon, as Lancelot Link used to say, "What's your theory, Darwin?" I know my answer. "Male and female, He made them." That's how sexual reproduction was added to an asexual environment. It was placed there by an outside influence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.