Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 03-14-2002, 06:48 PM

I want to make posters aware of the following thread on BaptistBoard.

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000142" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000142</a>

Some of you might find it interesting and might wish to participate. My next post will be coming this weekend.

-RvFvS

PS. Groan, I hate dealing with Helen's propoganda crap.

Mageth · 03-14-2002, 07:18 PM

From Helen:

Quote:

In a purely logical approach, sexual reproduction makes no sense at all for evolution. Mutations happen more quickly with single sex organisms, such as bacteria and the full genome can then be passed on to progeny. If Dawkins� point about selfish genes holds, then sexual reproduction is out. Sexual reproduction REDUCES the number of mutations passed on to progeny, thus DECREASING potential evolution. Nor does sexual reproduction itself particularly �care� or differentiate whether a mutation is beneficial or not when it occurs. Mixing is mixing and natural selection takes second place as far as heritability is concerned.

Sexual reproduction, however, is the evidence of the sort of creation we read about in Genesis 1, where each is created according to kind and
created in such a way as to perpetuate the kind itself as a distinct kind despite future variations and speciations. It makes sense ONLY in light of the plan to keep all mutations, and most especially damaging mutations, to a minimum in a population for as long as possible.

Logical approach? If keeping mutations to a minimum in a population is "good" in a created system, then it's "good" in an evolved system, no?

Evolution has no goal of keeping the rate of mutation high to speed up evolution (no goal of anything, actually). "Selfish genes" have no game plan and don't form strategies. It's all about reproduction/survivability - and if sexual reproduction provides a reproduction/survival advantage over asexual reproduction (for genes, organisms or species, whatever floats your boat) due to reduced mutations or for other reasons or combinations of reasons, then it will (arise and) propagate.

Principia · 03-14-2002, 07:27 PM

Any of you saw this argument?

Quote:

NS is highly over-rated. Most harmful mutations are never weeded out. These become fixed in the population and lead it closer to full-blown mutational meltdown. Unfortunately we are tracking the human population toward this phenomenon at an alarming rate: As James Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in Nature on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"
<a href="http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499scicit4.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499scicit4.html</a>

The poster here makes a big deal of the Eyre-Walker studies about how mutation rates, U, fail to support maintainance of sexual reproduction.

SC

Mageth · 03-14-2002, 07:43 PM

There's not much sense, IMO, in saying natural selection and/or sexual reproduction are or are not optimal mechanisms. They work well enough to generate what we see today, and I guess that's about all we can expect of them. I'm sure with some engineering and science we might think up better systems, but we're kinda stuck with what nature gave us (of course, genetic engineering might be considered an improvement of evolution that evolution has resulted in).

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 03-22-2002, 01:39 PM

BaptistBoard has updated the topic. Check it out.

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 12:11 AM

I've seen it suggested that sexual reproduction permitted the evolution of more complex lifeforms, because it reduces the effects of mutation. While evolution requires mutations to provide new raw material for natural selection to act upon, becoming more complex increases the likelyhood of mutational meltdown (where the rate at which mutations are removed from a population falls behind the rate at which mutations occur in the population).

RufusAtticus · 03-25-2002, 12:03 AM

Topic Updated.
I can't believe that I have to waste my time dealing with Helen's BS.

-RvFvS

Scotty · 03-25-2002, 06:50 AM

Just as a suggestion RvFvS, talk in complete scientific terms to Helen's questions. Don't put it in terms anybody could understand, except other scientists (not that I am one

).

She seems to claim that she understands all of this, so I wouldn't hold back at all if I were you. She will get confused and interpret things incorrectly and you can say a bunch of things like "You don't understand", or "that is incorrect", and you will have more fun. It may not solve anything, but it will put her on the defensive and anger her and she will probably stoop to more name calling because she won't have anyplace else to go. (I like screwing with people's minds, I just don't have enough data to do it effectively!)

I would enjoy that anyway (the lurker that I am).

wsurL aowkkubf *edit: spelling*

-Scott

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Scotty ]</p>

MrDarwin · 03-25-2002, 08:37 AM

I don't have time to post over there but I see she asks, "How did sex � as we all understand sex to mean, please � evolve?" (Emphasis mine)

Well, what do we "all understand sex to mean"? I suspect biologists would have a different understanding than she does. Has anybody pointed out the full range of sexual behaviors? At its most basic, "sex" is just the exchange or sharing of genetic information between two distinct organisms; in multicellular critters it usually involves specialized gametes (sperm and egg).

So--when bacteria exchange genetic information, is that sex? How about protists? How about things like earthworms that are true hermaphrodites? How about those all-female populations of lizards that reproduce parthenogenetically, but only when mounted by another female?

Try asking her where she draws the line, then ask about those things that approach that line from either side. Let her set the definition--which I suspect won't be the same as that used by biologists--and then point out the flaws in that definition.

RufusAtticus · 03-25-2002, 05:46 PM

Thanks for the recomendations, guys, I'll think about them when I next compose.

-RvFvS

03-14-2002, 06:48 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Evolution of Sex I want to make posters aware of the following thread on BaptistBoard. <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000142" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000142</a> Some of you might find it interesting and might wish to participate. My next post will be coming this weekend. -RvFvS PS. Groan, I hate dealing with Helen's propoganda crap.

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

03-14-2002, 07:43 PM	#4
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	There's not much sense, IMO, in saying natural selection and/or sexual reproduction are or are not optimal mechanisms. They work well enough to generate what we see today, and I guess that's about all we can expect of them. I'm sure with some engineering and science we might think up better systems, but we're kinda stuck with what nature gave us (of course, genetic engineering might be considered an improvement of evolution that evolution has resulted in). [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-22-2002, 01:39 PM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	BaptistBoard has updated the topic. Check it out.

03-23-2002, 12:11 AM	#6
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I've seen it suggested that sexual reproduction permitted the evolution of more complex lifeforms, because it reduces the effects of mutation. While evolution requires mutations to provide new raw material for natural selection to act upon, becoming more complex increases the likelyhood of mutational meltdown (where the rate at which mutations are removed from a population falls behind the rate at which mutations occur in the population).

03-25-2002, 12:03 AM	#7
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Topic Updated. I can't believe that I have to waste my time dealing with Helen's BS. -RvFvS

03-25-2002, 06:50 AM	#8
Scotty Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: OutBound Posts: 804	Just as a suggestion RvFvS, talk in complete scientific terms to Helen's questions. Don't put it in terms anybody could understand, except other scientists (not that I am one ). She seems to claim that she understands all of this, so I wouldn't hold back at all if I were you. She will get confused and interpret things incorrectly and you can say a bunch of things like "You don't understand", or "that is incorrect", and you will have more fun. It may not solve anything, but it will put her on the defensive and anger her and she will probably stoop to more name calling because she won't have anyplace else to go. (I like screwing with people's minds, I just don't have enough data to do it effectively!) I would enjoy that anyway (the lurker that I am). wsurL aowkkubf edit: spelling -Scott [ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Scotty ]</p>

03-25-2002, 08:37 AM	#9
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I don't have time to post over there but I see she asks, "How did sex � as we all understand sex to mean, please � evolve?" (Emphasis mine) Well, what do we "all understand sex to mean"? I suspect biologists would have a different understanding than she does. Has anybody pointed out the full range of sexual behaviors? At its most basic, "sex" is just the exchange or sharing of genetic information between two distinct organisms; in multicellular critters it usually involves specialized gametes (sperm and egg). So--when bacteria exchange genetic information, is that sex? How about protists? How about things like earthworms that are true hermaphrodites? How about those all-female populations of lizards that reproduce parthenogenetically, but only when mounted by another female? Try asking her where she draws the line, then ask about those things that approach that line from either side. Let her set the definition--which I suspect won't be the same as that used by biologists--and then point out the flaws in that definition.

03-25-2002, 05:46 PM	#10
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Thanks for the recomendations, guys, I'll think about them when I next compose. -RvFvS

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.