Natural Selection and Reproductive Organs

[The Sum of Awe]

Just to clarify, I don't reject the fact of evolution.


Most organs, if not all, are the result of a long period of time to get how they are today.

But mustn't that exclude reproductive organs, genes, semen, etc.? Since that is needed to pass on traits that play a hand in natural selection. So basically, which happened first: natural selection or the existence of genes, reproductive organs, testicles, eggs, etc.?

It seems odd since natural selection has been here ever since traits were passed on, while the complexity of reproductive organs should have taken a long time to be resulted in. Of course you could say that reproductive organs had always been in living things but the complex structure and function were later features. In that case, how about genes? If genes beget the offspring, wouldn't they too have to have existed before natural selection considering their complexity as well.

Taking this to philosophy: The main reason we exist is because if we didn't then there'd be no 'us' to notice. Like lottery, where the winner might take it as a miracle but in reality there had to be some winner and just so happened to be him. If it wasn't, another person would've won, and thought the same thing.

That doesn't answer, though, why life can be passed on. There could've been life to notice existence, but just not capable of reproducing. It just interests me how not only we can experience existence, but we can share this experience by creating life ourselves. It really makes me lean toward the idea there is some sort of meaning to life

 

[Terese]

Just to clarify, I don't reject the fact of evolution.


Most organs, if not all, are the result of a long period of time to get how they are today.

But mustn't that exclude reproductive organs, genes, semen, etc.? Since that is needed to pass on traits that play a hand in natural selection. So basically, which happened first: natural selection or the existence of genes, reproductive organs, testicles, eggs, etc.?

It seems odd since natural selection has been here ever since traits were passed on, while the complexity of reproductive organs should have taken a long time to be resulted in. Of course you could say that reproductive organs had always been in living things but the complex structure and function were later features. In that case, how about genes? If genes beget the offspring, wouldn't they too have to have existed before natural selection considering their complexity as well.

Taking this to philosophy: The main reason we exist is because if we didn't then there'd be no 'us' to notice. Like lottery, where the winner might take it as a miracle but in reality there had to be some winner and just so happened to be him. If it wasn't, another person would've won, and thought the same thing.

That doesn't answer, though, why life can be passed on. There could've been life to notice existence, but just not capable of reproducing. It just interests me how not only we can experience existence, but we can share this experience by creating life ourselves. It really makes me lean toward the idea there is some sort of meaning to life

In the beginning of life on earth there were only cells. just because they gave rise to more complex forms of life does not mean they had it in the first place. If they did, it would not be evolution. The complexity of reproductive organs fit the organism. the way it works, is influenced by our environment. It's the same thing with genes. Natural selection happened first. It's like gravity, a force that biological organism adapt to survive. This is why we are here today. the existence of genes came from life, which appeared on earth which, there are multiple theories how it became so.

 

[George-ananda]

It really makes me lean toward the idea there is some sort of meaning to life

The whole; the existence of matter, abiogenesis, the creation of such complex beings with DNA blue prints for creating all the complex components argues to me (not proves) that there is some sort of meaning to life and some conscious intelligences that desired all these events to happen.

 

[Kirran]

The whole; the existence of matter, abiogenesis, the creation of such complex beings with DNA blue prints for creating all the complex components argues to me (not proves) that there is some sort of meaning to life and some conscious intelligences that desired all these events to happen.

That isn't so much 'argues' as 'gives me the feeling'.

 

[Yerda]

But mustn't that exclude reproductive organs, genes, semen, etc.?

These evolved too. Sexual reproduction itself is a product of evolution.

So basically, which happened first: natural selection or the existence of genes, reproductive organs, testicles, eggs, etc.?

First came replicators. Reproductive systems didn't appear until much later.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't take genes or complex reproductive organs to reproduce. Self replicating molecules, compounds and particles have existed for a long time. The complexity observed in some species has developed over time.

 

[rusra02]

The fact that animals can reproduce is in full harmony with the Genesis creation account, while the ToE has no real answer to how animals reproduce; only speculation and assertion that it happened by evolution.

 

[Valjean]

The fact that animals can reproduce is in full harmony with the Genesis creation account,

What does that mean? Who's disputing that animals can reproduce?

while the ToE has no real answer to how animals reproduce; only speculation and assertion that it happened by evolution.

Where did you come up with this? Biology doesn't understand reproduction? And no scientist would be satisfied with "it happened by evolution" as an explanation of anything.

Here's an example of the Bible's understanding of reproduction and genetics:

Genesis 30:37-39
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That isn't so much 'argues' as 'gives me the feeling'.

And, you've just pinpointed the primary motivating factor for the majority of the population.

 

[rusra02]

What does that mean? Who's disputing that animals can reproduce?
Where did you come up with this? Biology doesn't understand reproduction? And no scientist would be satisfied with "it happened by evolution" as an explanation of anything.

Here's an example of the Bible's understanding of reproduction and genetics:

Evolutionists claim reproduction somehow evolved, but they have no proof this occurred. The Bible says God created animals with the power to reproduce. The known facts fit with the Holy Scriptures. As to Jacobs view that he could influence inherited traits, the Bible simply reported what he did. Reporting what Jacob did certainly does not suggest that Jacob was correct. Later, Jacob acknowledged it was Jehovah that caused what happened to his flocks. (Genesis 31:41,42)

 

[Valjean]

First, science doesn't "prove" anything, rusra; not the germ theory of disease, not the spherical Earth theory nor the theory that Earth revolves around the Sun. We do have masses of evidence that organisms changed over time, often becoming more complex in the process. Along the way numerous methods of exchanging genetic material developed, as well as various methods of reproducing without exchanging genetic material. Strategies for respiration, feeding, digestion, locomotion reproduction, &c all evolved over time. There is simply no other reasonable explanation; no other competing theory.

Magic poofing is not a reasonable explanation. It's not an explanation at all, nor is there any evidence supporting it.

I think you may be comparing apples and oranges, as well. The ToE is a theory of mechanism. It describes how organisms changed.

ID is not a theory. It does not use the methodology of science. It splits -- 'if the ToE is ruled out then magic is the only remaining possibility'.

ID is an assertion agency; who rather than how. There is no mechanism to it, just magic.

 

[ScottySatan]

Sum of Awe:
Scientists can explain the evolution of sex very well, probably better than just about anything else. Like the eye, sex organs and sex in general have a continuum of structures ranging from barely functional and looking like something else to what humans have today. Some people don't have the wisdom to realise that just because YOU can't explain something scientifically, doesn't mean that someone else can't.

The natural history of sex is fascinating. Look up sex pilli. Look up how bedbugs do it with their stabby penis swords, no vagina needed! Look up how anglerfish do it (i recommend the oatmeal as a reference for that one).That's not an argument or anything, just something I think you would think is cool if you're thinking about this.

Some primitive eukaryotic cells (like yeasts) have sex just by fusing together into one bigger cell...does that remind you of any part of sex in higher organisms?

Your question on which came first? The order you listed is the correct sequence of appearances.