The Hypocrisy of Evolution

[shawn001]

Hello,
I respect your reply, however, wikipedia can hardly be taken seriously as an authoritative source.

There are many out there why haven't you looked into them before coming here and wanting a simple answer to a complex question.

Out of curiosity are you part of this old campaign?

"


We are fans of the Question Evolution! Campaign which was initiated by Creation Ministries International.
How did sex originate?

Question Evolution!: How did sex originate?


Claim CB350:
Sex is too complex for its origin to be explained by evolution. Males and females would have to evolve independently, and any incompatibility in any of the physical, chemical, or behavioral components would have caused extinction. Furthermore, evolutionary theory predicts that asexual reproduction would be favored because asexual species can reproduce faster.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, pp. 14-15.
Response:

1. The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.
2. Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000).

References:

1. Barton, N. H. and B. Charlesworth, 1998. Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986-1990.
2. Davies, E. K., A. D. Peters and P. D. Keightley, 1999. High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 285: 1748-1751.
3. Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.
4. Paland, Susanne and Michael Lynch. 2006. Transitions to asexuality result in excess amino acid substitutions. Science 311: 990-992. See also: Nielsen, Rasmus. 2006. Why sex? Science 311: 960-961.
5. Sá Martins, J. S., 2000. Simulated coevolution in a mutating ecology. Physical Review E 61(3): R2212-R2215.
   
   

Further Reading:
Judson, Olivia, 2002. Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, New York: Metropolitan Books.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, 1990. Origins of sex: three billion years of genetic recombination, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wuethrich, Bernice, 1998. Why sex? Putting theory to the test. Science 281: 1980-1982. See also several related articles in the same issue.

CB350: The origin of sex

 

[shawn001]

So lets answer Devin, with exactly what he wants to hear and keep science and 150 years of a theory that has never been or will be overthrown.

How did sex originate?

God did it and the missionary position.

 

[shawn001]

So Devin, why is this true?

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census

"there are 10 times more bacterial cells in your body than human cells"

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American

 

[SomeRandom]

Hello,
So, your claim is 'it is too vast a topic to sum up simply,' please correct if I am wrong. But if this is so, I have a question out of concern, if the concept of evolution is so logical and obvious, then why does it require so much explanation, and only the 'most brilliant scientists' (exaggeration intended) can fully understand it? Whereas the opposing view, God created everything, is easily explaned, and understood and it only took 3 words.

(I say this as a believer of God) Because to say simply that "God did it" is as lazy, simplistic and lacking in complexity as it gets. It's so simplistic that to call it overtly simplistic would be an understatement. The Theory of Evolution is not easily summed up because of a little thing called nuance. It is very complicated and requires serious research and a background in the discipline in order to truly understand all it's complexities. Much like quantum physics would require someone to be very well versed in matters relating to Physics. We don't teach this to High School kids, we teach this to people who wish to study it in depth at a much higher academic level. Meaning this sort of field might be logical and obvious, but the general populace won't normally know about it properly, especially not the same way those who actively study it for a bleeding living would know about it. Same with Language, same with any freaking intellectual discipline you can think of. We teach basics to kids, sometimes those basics are actually inaccurate as part of the simplification process, but more on that in a minute. Then when you become an adult you choose specifically what discipline/s you wish to know in depth.

Some things might be able to simplified effectively for a layman. But ultimately the "ins and outs" so to speak would require a bit more knowledge/background than your average layman has. For example, most people can use an email easy enough. But not many know how it actually works. All they know is, I click, it goes to my designated person/s. Job done. But you can very easily explain to a layman how it works. In order to truly understand everything that goes into it, the protocols, their functions, the coding, the algorithms etc would probably require someone to have a bit more background in one or more disciplines of Computing Science. If only slightly more than a layman. This background allows said person to grasp the complexities of an Email or whatever function far far better than an average layman in the field would. Because of the more in depth study a person would have to do.

Take education as a whole. When you're little and "studying" English, you learn a rule like "I before E except after C." This is shorthand, designed for tots to grasp very basic "rules" about the English Language. However, as you get older and you learn more about English you see this "rule" broken tenfold. Neighbors, Weight, Height etc. This is complexity that you wouldn't necessarily teach an average 5 year old, but would teach an older child who has "studied" English for a bit longer. Because one, they have more "practice" with the English Language, two academically speaking they are ready to learn such things, whereas a 5 year old with less experience and understanding would not and 3 they have a bit more "background" so to speak.

It's kind of the same principle for ToE. We teach a sort of shorthand to Primary/Elementary and Secondary School kids. Leaving out the many many complexities and ultimately "dumbing it down" so to speak. If they choose to study Biology in depth they will learn the complexities more in depth, they will be able to truly "understand" it far better than their classmate who did not choose to study Science in depth later in life and the will ultimately relearn a lot of the basics. Only this time what they learn will be the "corrected" (for lack of a better word) version.

Does that make sense? I hope so, I'm quite tired.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hello,
So, your claim is 'it is too vast a topic to sum up simply,' please correct if I am wrong. But if this is so, I have a question out of concern, if the concept of evolution is so logical and obvious, then why does it require so much explanation, and only the 'most brilliant scientists' (exaggeration intended) can fully understand it? Whereas the opposing view, God created everything, is easily explained, and understood and it only took 3 words.

"Truth resists simplicity"- John Green.
If it is that simple and that easy then it is doubtful it is true. And do you have a good answer to "why" or "how"?

Evolution itself is simple. But we can continually go on and on about the specifics of each different aspect as it builds upon itself. Evolution can be summed up in two basic points. There are regular random mutations within the genome and on rare occasions those mutations are beneficial. Natural selection removes the less beneficial or detrimental genes systematically while promoting the beneficial mutations. Thus resulting in a permanent change within gene pools.

Speciation if we want to go further is the change of separated gene pools in their genetic drift.

Pretty simple right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Debunking God was also an explicit goal of classical physics, static/eternal steady state universes, Big Crunch, Multiverses and M theory-"

No its wasn't and what God? There are millions and millions of them. Cosmology doesn't study God and is looking for how things work in nature.

and you left out the weak anthropic principle.

you'd have to argue that opinion with Hoyle, Hawking ,etc- they explicitly touted their theories as 'making God redundant'. which God? ask them, it's obvious enough even atheist cosmologists didn't feel the need to be any more specific. They talk about 'God' far more than Lemaitre ever did

 

[gnostic]

you'd have to argue that opinion with Hoyle, Hawking ,etc- they explicitly touted their theories as 'making God redundant'. which God? ask them, it's obvious enough even atheist cosmologists didn't feel the need to be any more specific. They talk about 'God' far more than Lemaitre ever did

Why do you continue to derail thread about evolution with physical cosmology?

Evolution is biology, and Hoyle, Hawking and Lemaitre were never biologists. You go from one thread to another about evolution, but you keep talking about unrelated subjects of Hoyle vs Lemaître, or that of Big Bang vs Steady State, which had nothing to do with evolution.

Why do you keep persisting on beating a dead horse or attacking strawman?

Can you not understand the difference between physics and biology?

Are you a troll? Or are you simply ignorant that can't understand the differences between two different fields.

If you really want to talk of Hoyle vs Lemaître, or that of Big Bang vs Steady State, then please start a bloody new thread, instead of hijacking the threads relating to evolution.

Start a new thread or stick to the subject.

 

[shawn001]

you'd have to argue that opinion with Hoyle, Hawking ,etc- they explicitly touted their theories as 'making God redundant'. which God? ask them, it's obvious enough even atheist cosmologists didn't feel the need to be any more specific. They talk about 'God' far more than Lemaitre ever did

and Lemaitre was connected to the Catholic Church who is on board with the scientific theory of Evolution.


The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.

"
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans."

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity - Telegraph