The Origin of Sexual Reproduction

[Edric O]

[c=#00dd00]So... is there anything actually being discussed here, or is everyone just asking the other side to start presenting arguments first?

Personally, I'm disappointed. I am somewhat interested in the origin of sexual reproduction, but not interested enough that I would go out of my way to research it. So I was hoping that I could find out some new things from this thread. Guess not. Ah well.[/c]

[Dante]

Don't look at me. I could explain the whole damn thing over again, or even link to several potted histories explaining how and why sexual reproduction evolved, but I'm not going to because I'm not about to be the one to throw bones to trolls.

Edit: See that? That's someone stifling discussion right there.

[Wolf]

Haha, I mean, Edric's got a point, we are just sort of d*cking around here, but, still, not even Edric cares enough to do this issue justice until there's some additional stuff to... well, do justice to. Chigger and I recognize and, I think, stand by the principle of the thing--which is, if he had a problem with it, it's incumbent on him to let us know what the problem is. He's had his opportunity, it's been like 72 hours, and it's gone. Far as I'm concerned, that's a forfeit. Know what that means, oh, dearest OP? That means sexual reproduction evolved through the means of natural selection. Fact.

[SandChigger]

[c=#00dd00]Personally, I'm disappointed. I am somewhat interested in the origin of sexual reproduction, but not interested enough that I would go out of my way to research it. So I was hoping that I could find out some new things from this thread. Guess not. Ah well.[/c]

How spooky: we're in complete agreement on something! LOL.

It's not something I've really been interested in before this, but I've already learned a bit over the last couple of days just googling and spot-reading things to prove to myself that THERE IS INFORMATION out there and THERE ARE HYPOTHESES about it. Lots of papers and, WOW, even BOOKS!

One thing I didn't know before is that this is obviously another blah-blah point on the websites supporting IDiocy.

[ErasOmnius]

Don't look at me. I could explain the whole damn thing over again, or even link to several potted histories explaining how and why sexual reproduction evolved, but I'm not going to because I'm not about to be the one to throw bones to trolls.

Throw me a link or two.

Maybe I'll be able to understand some of the jargon of Dr Harris Bernstein better.

[arnoldo]

I found the following lecture by Mark Sussman to be informative (click on lecture #2 Why sex is important). In the lecture he presents three hypothesis re sexual reproduction (page #3).

1.DNA repair

2.The Tangled Bank

3. The Red Queen

The latter hypothesis seems to be the most widely accepted. To summarize briefly, this hypothesis presents that sexual reproduction was advantageous for survival when organisms were dealing with parasites. Those organisms which reproduced asexually weren't able to change fast enough to counter parasites/diseases. Thus, organisms which continued to reproduce asexually were typically those which had shorter life spans and/or lived in environments which checked parasites/diseases. Newer theories have proposed that the Red Queen hypothesis failed to take into consideration the variable of temperature in host-parasite interaction ( Temperature checks the Red Queen? Resistance and virulence in a fluctuating environment).

Of course, these hypothesis regarding sexual reproduction is distinct from the question whether spontaneous abiogenesis occurred solely by naturalistic means alone.

[SandChigger]

Of course, these hypothesis regarding sexual reproduction is distinct from the question whether spontaneous abiogenesis occurred solely by naturalistic means alone.

Yes, arnoldo, that's why this thread was split off from that one. WAY to bring it up again.

[ErasOmnius]

The beginnings of, and the evolution of sexual reproduction is a weak link in the whole Theory. From what I've read, it can never be explained fully, or even in part. But this is the only origin of human-kind and life on this planet that is allowed to be taught in the public schools of The West.

And saying that I simply wouldn't understand, "'cause I'm jus' too dum'", really shouldn't be an excuse.

[Dragoon Knight]

[colour=#005FFF]And yet still no mention of what, precisely, you disagree with. No links to anything substansive. It's all posturing.

It's becoming clear that you've done nothing in the way of research into this, since you can't even link one article that says something that you disagree with, and then provide a decent argument as to why. All you can do is blithely re-state your laughable position in the hope that someone will do the work for you.

No, Eras, the burden is on you. YOU find an article that manages to poke a hole in scientific theory in a way that's logical and non-biased, then post it here with your thoughts behind it. OR, find an article that explains a certain facet of the theory and then post your detailed reasons as to why you disagree with it.

There's a good boy.[/colour]

[ErasOmnius]

There's nothing to poke a hole into. It's a topic that no evolutionary scientist wants to talk about. The whole 'house of cards of evolution' can't explain how our sexual organs came to be. For all of the put downs, making fun ofs, name-calling of creation/intelligent design scientists and individuals, there's no explanation. Maybe if we add another 200 hundred zillion years to the evolutionary column/timeline, we can come up with a whiz bang answer. Of all the times I've asked this question over the years, there's been a lot of stammering, shuffling of feet, and throwing it back and forth -- but never an answer.

I don't base my entire existence, my entire behaviour, on a flawed Theory that can't explain even the simplest of things.

[Dragoon Knight]

That's another post without anything substansive. You're clearly not listening, which isn't surprising, but I'll repeat myself yet again.

You claim you've researched this topic "extensively over the past year" - prove it. Link even one of the articles you've read, explain why you find it questionable and/or suggest why it's wrong. Until then, you're wrong.

I don't base my entire existence, my entire behaviour, on a flawed Theory that can't explain even the simplest of things.

The irony in that statement was enough to make me literally laugh out loud.

[ErasOmnius]

I asked a question on December 9th. If no one can provide an answer,then that is the way it is.

If someone asks a question about Scientific Creationism, then I can readily explain all aspects of what I believe.

I understand the silence...because I have come to understand over the past 2 weeks, that there is NO explanation.

[Dragoon Knight]

Wrong again! There is an explanation. And because everyone else but you seems to be happy with it, I repeat myself yet again:

Link even one of the articles you've read, explain why you find it questionable and/or suggest why it's wrong. Until then, you're wrong.

[SandChigger]

I asked a question on December 9th. If no one can provide an answer,then that is the way it is.

If someone asks a question about Scientific Creationism, then I can readily explain all aspects of what I believe.

I understand the silence...because I have come to understand over the past 2 weeks, that there is NO explanation.

BULLcrap. Even the little Toady for McDune & Jesus tried to help you out by doing some of your work for you and listed a couple of theories.

You are thoroughly dishonest and a complete hypocrite. My, wouldn't Jesus be proud!

What I'd really like to know is why this kind of crap isn't considered trolling as well.

[Edric O]

Ok, enough is enough, there hasn't been any real discussion of anything in this thread since the beginning. Time to put it out of its misery.

Thread locked.