Darwin and Reproduction!

[MisterOZ]

Growing up I was very much the believer in evolution until I realized that there was simply something not right about the theory (God speaking). This revelation occurred long before I became aware of the benefits of knowing Christ. My major contention with Darwinism concerns reproduction.

I have been searching for any clue or any literature, either on the web or in scientific publications, which discusses "sexual reproduction" and sexual dimorphism on the Darwinian precepts of natural selection and random mutations. Despite an exhaustive search I have found very little in the science. In fact most, if not all, of the literature is directed towards the necessity for sexual reproduction to "fix" DNA or as a better transference of beneficial mutations. I find that this aspect of Darwinian gradualism is its Achilles heel, one that cannot be explained by materialism just as"origin of life" or microcellular complexity cannot.

If we follow Darwinism to its conclusion in regards to the evolution of what amounts to two different species in male and female then how does gradualism explain the evolution of diverging and competing yet complementary physiologies, from a common ancestor only capable of asexual reproduction? Also of note is that despite the energy requirements for sexual reproduction and the inherent dangers involved like disease and selective mating why did sexual reproduction become the method of choice for gene transference and heredity for most of the higher life forms?

The question is why isn't this at the foremost of Darwinian critique, and why don't evolutionist like to discuss this critical aspect of evolution particularly since Darwinism fails without a determined explanation on how sexual reproduction from a common primordial ancestor could possibly be explained by Darwinism?

[godslanguage]

This is a good argument, you are correct that this is the achilles heal since sexual reproduction is the underlying driving force of mutations and subsequent evolution. Darwinian Evolutionists usually discuss mutations in the reproductive context, as far as I can tell.

[MisterOZ]

It is my experience that theist are much more open minded in this debate in that we are curios about a science that trends towards material relativism, secularism and atheism (that darn free will thing). If we are to accept that a single celled organism can only self replicate, which, in effect, is a clone, and that mutations at this level are more apt to have a deleterious effect on the organism who must have an inherent ability to discern between good and bad mutations since cells have a "fix it" program for DNA errors, therefore mutations must be directed for evolution to work (sans creation).

If we follow evolution along that course of progression then at any point where the organism splits with separate and distinct reproductive apparatus which must then evolve and progress, at each stage of development, complimentary sex apparatus meaning that reproductive organs must develop an interdependent product simultaneously even though those organs are dissimilar in every respect. Remember, it is more important to consider the physiological growth of the organs in relation to gradualism and natural selection. If we consider that Darwin surmised that evolution occurs when a population is geographically separated and then natural selection now acts upon two separate populations differently then even if we take into account that one population becomes male and the other female then they still would have to develop complimentary reproductive systems for the process to work. This is also faulty since at what point do the different populations converge and figure out that they can sexually reproduce without the development of an impetus to do so.

Darwinian evolution can in no why reconcile the appearance of sexual reproduction without a directed process and must admit this. This is why creationism makes sense particularly in relation to Adam and Eve and the philosophic construction of Gods history with Man in Genesis.

We must understand that atheism will persist regardless of any evidence or proof to the contrary since that is also part of Gods plan. But, it is very easy to commit to Gods creation as a matter of science strengthened by Faith and, also the God given ability to reason logically.

[ManOfScience]

I only have time for a brief reply, and it might be somewhat generic (my thoughts could be applied to other, similar, arguments for God), but it might give food for thought.

Science doesn't have all the answers; nor does it claim to. I don't know whether any evolutionary biologists have claimed to have figured out the origin of sex. Perhaps they have not. But it doesn't matter; research is an ongoing process.

I realize your posts are mainly about pointing out a claimed flaw in Darwin's theory of evolution. But it is this sort of thinking that, time after time, leads to "God of the Gaps" type arguments. We can see this starting in your penultimate paragraph above:

Darwinian evolution can in no why reconcile the appearance of sexual reproduction without a directed process and must admit this. This is why creationism makes sense particularly in relation to Adam and Eve and the philosophic construction of Gods history with Man in Genesis.

What you're saying is, "Darwin didn't have all the answers, therefore God exists." Put like that, it becomes plain to see how absurd such reasoning is.

Now, I'm not knocking your overall argument. Perhaps there are aspects of Darwinian evolution that are yet to be fully explained. In fact, there are probably countless such examples waiting to be picked on. ("Why does the ring-tailed rabbit have blue ears? Where's the benefit in that?") Just because we can't (yet) explain every aspect of the overall theory, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that the main competing theory is necessarily right (without even putting that under scrutiny!).

[DannyM]

I only have time for a brief reply, and it might be somewhat generic (my thoughts could be applied to other, similar, arguments for God), but it might give food for thought.

Science doesn't have all the answers; nor does it claim to. I don't know whether any evolutionary biologists have claimed to have figured out the origin of sex. Perhaps they have not. But it doesn't matter; research is an ongoing process. !).

Hmm, so your “food for thought” is that, erm, scientific research is an ongoing process…? Wow, I mean you are just on a ROLL here 'aint ya?

I realize your posts are mainly about pointing out a claimed flaw in Darwin's theory of evolution. But it is this sort of thinking that, time after time, leads to "God of the Gaps" type arguments. !).

...As opposed to what? …Your lame talk of ongoing research? Isn't this just a pathetic attempt at filling the gaps? “I have no answer, so what I'll do is offer up a science of the gaps by saying that the scientific research is ongoing.”… Isn't this scientism in its most crude form? Come on, Boy of science, give us a bone here…

Now, I'm not knocking your overall argument. Perhaps there are aspects of Darwinian evolution that are yet to be fully explained. In fact, there are probably countless such examples waiting to be picked on. ("Why does the ring-tailed rabbit have blue ears? Where's the benefit in that?") Just because we can't (yet) explain every aspect of the overall theory, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean that the main competing theory is necessarily right (without even putting that under scrutiny!).

Yup. Just more science of the gaps I'm afraid…Seems to me like you, when presented with an anomaly, resort to the pathetically lame…”Well, err, it's an ongoing process, innit? Is that all you've got? Are you a scientist?

[ManOfScience]

DannyM,

I don't know whether you're stubborn, ignorant, or just an angry creature looking for a fight. Whichever it is, I'll not waste any more of my time with you.

[Zebulon]

… Isn't this scientism in its most crude form? Come on, Boy of science, give us a bone here…

How about 3 bones? or three two two?



Zebulon

[Zebulon]

DannyM,

I don't know whether you're stubborn, ignorant, or just an angry creature looking for a fight. Whichever it is, I'll not waste any more of my time with you.

Hummmm: stubborn, ignorant... angry creature looking for a fight? Did you say that while looking in the mirror?
Phrase removed by Zeb


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein (blink to bart)
Zebulon (having fun I must admit)

[DannyM]

DannyM,

I don't know whether you're stubborn, ignorant, or just an angry creature looking for a fight. Whichever it is, I'll not waste any more of my time with you.

The thing is, Boy of science, is that you've been well and truly called on your unscientific double-speak. You have nothing to offer so you try the old "...I do not talk to the ignorant..." nonsense, when the truth is you have nothing to offer other than anti-science and rhetoric. You've been found out, my son.

[DannyM]

… Isn't this scientism in its most crude form? Come on, Boy of science, give us a bone here…

How about 3 bones? or three two two?



Zebulon

[ManOfScience]

You've been found out, my son.

Try all you like; I'll not get wound up by your trash talk. I'll save my energy for those who argue via intelligent thought rather than cheap insults. (There are plenty of such individuals - those sharing your beliefs but, thankfully, not your attitude - on this board.)

[DannyM]

You've been found out, my son.

Try all you like; I'll not get wound up by your trash talk. I'll save my energy for those who argue via intelligent thought rather than cheap insults. (There are plenty of such individuals - those sharing your beliefs but, thankfully, not your attitude - on this board.)

Yeah nice one my old sausage. I have not insulted you once; you just cannot handle the heat. I've called you on your uinscientific talk; I've called you on Climbing Mount Improbable - you've body-swerved both and tried to label me unintelligent, ignorant et cetera - the chief tactic of the atheist - when in reality you have nothing to offer. Oh and I know the tactic of praising others on here in the effort to further belittle me...Only a fool would not see through your bluster and flailing in the dark. Go to the other thread: you recommended Mount Improbable; I'd already read it, gave you a thorough example of its amateur status as a book of relevance, invited you to analyse the book further with me...And you declined using your one-trick of trying to belittle your opponent. Memo to Boy of science: atheism is in a time-warp of ancient arguments, get better ones...So, to sum up, I've answered everything you've had to say, presented you with a dilemma, of which you have completely ignored. As I said, you've been found out, my son.

[Canuckster1127]

Time Out!

I want everyone involved in this thread to step back for a moment and consider some things.

First, as a reminder, here are our discussion guidelines.

These discussion guidelines have been developed to outline the purpose of this board and expected conduct of those who participate. Administrators and moderators are responsible for enforcing the rules, and can moderate at their discretion to ensure that the desired spirit at these boards is maintained. Such moderation may include messages being edited or removed with or without warning, and/or posters being suspended or banned.

Site Spamming
SPAMMING THE BOARD WILL NOT HELP YOUR SEARCH ENGINE RANKING! This is because the entire discussion board is off-limits to all search engines and is NOT indexed by any. So, don't bother to post your spam links here.

Board Purpose
This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers. It is important that everyone who participates on this board is aware of our board purpose.

Language
The God and Science website is rated "family friendly" and for "all ages", so please keep your words clean. Some words considered inappropriate have been blocked, and attempts to get around a blocked word by inserting a space or character will not be tolerated.

Mannerism
Within discussions, please be civil and courteous and do not resort to personal attacks. If you feel inappropriately attacked, please bring such cases privately to a moderator who can then intervene as necessary. While these instructions are likely unnecessary for the vast majority of participants, here is some biblical advice to help serve as a guide for conversations:


Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - "in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12).
"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)
"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6)
"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8)
Constructive Discussions
To have a constructive discussion, there are at least four main requirements:


At Least Two People: This point should be obvious.
A Specific Topic: All conversations should have one specific topic, and as such should remain on that topic. Any new topic that forks out and is too far removed, should be started as a new thread or brought to a moderator's attention.
Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.
Self-control: Chances are you will disagree with someone, and it is at this point discussions can turn nasty. Please remember to be respectful to others and keep to the topic rather than resorting to personal attacks.
Plagiarism, References, and Misquoting
Plagiarism is not accepted here. Any information gotten from another source must be referenced in some way. In most cases, all that is expected is a single link along with who you quoted. All Bible quotes must also be cited.

The trustworthiness of sources and quality of references should also be determined, otherwise you might end up embarrassed. There are many ideas floating around on the Web, and the quality can generally be judged by where it came from. For example, you should be wary of sources that are predominately "opinionative", don't appear "educated" on the issue, or lack "professionalism". In addition, refrain from continually using references that have already been outrightly shown as false.

Misquoting is also frowned upon and will be cause for intervention by a moderator. It is best to quote an entire sentence, even paragraph if possible. However, quoting a few middle words where the authors intention clearly does not support your case is dishonest so will not be accepted.

General Spamming
Spamming will not be accepted. By "spamming" we mean links advertising commercial or inappropriate websites, posts only containing links, and/or posts containing massive amounts of text uninspiring to discussions. Such posts will be moved into the "Garbage Bin" or deleted by a moderator at their discretion. Active posters wishing to place links to a personal or related website in their signature are welcome to do so.

Moderating
A moderator reserves the right to deal with any post they deem inappropriate, including for reasons not specifically mentioned here. If you feel unjustly dealt with, please contact the moderator in question directly and privately. If you have any questions on issues not covered here, please contact a moderator for advice. Comments regarding these rules of conduct are also welcome as long as they are constructive.

This site is a primarily Christian site and I hope that is clear.

ManofScience, has not, as of yet to my observation, crossed any lines or gone beyond the science issues in the conversations I've observed. Non-belilevers who are willing to abide by the guidelines above and who understand our purpose are welcome.

Others on this thread, I have to tell you, that this is not intended to be a site that treats others with disrespect or declines to discuss matters with a level of respect even where there is disagreement.

I've rarely said this, but I'm a little embarrassed to be a main proponent on this board with some of the behavior I've been seeing and the fact that it is from people who are primarily coming from positions that I support discourages me.

I fully expect there to be disagreement on many issues in this area. I have many of them myself and I'm fine with discussing them. When the conversation moves from the issues to personalities and ad hominem attacks, then the discussion is finished before it starts.

Please, any who need to hear this, consider what you are doing and what you are saying and consider if your actions are representing effectively and accurately what you want to say, how you want to say it and what it says, for those who profess to know Christ, how that reflects upon Christ.

If it continues, I will contact those needing it behind the scenes to discuss this further.

bart

[DannyM]

Indeed. And I for one are embarrassed at this phoney indignation of some Christians. It seems it is okay to be called ignorant and unintelligent but not okay to call out an atheist... I'm very disappointed in this quasi-logic I must say.

[cslewislover]

Danny, no one should be calling anybody anything. No eye for an eye, OK? If someone is giving you a problem on the board, you can always bring it to a mods attention. We all don't monitor all the threads, and we all aren't here all of the time.