Refuting an Incredulity Argument

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Refuting an Incredulity Argument

Got a creationist on FB that has decided to take me on. ( It has been funny so far). But he put forth the notion that evolution was not possible because the chances of a male and female evolving at the exact same time would have been TOO far out to be a coincidence.

I explained that we evolved from a male/female species prior to becoming Homo Sapiens, but he was not buying that.

What's a good argument to get rid of that one ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Got a creationist on

Quote:

Got a creationist on FB that has decided to take me on. ( It has been funny so far). But he put forth the notion that evolution was not possible because the chances of a male and female evolving at the exact same time would have been TOO far out to be a coincidence.

 

Half your DNA came from your mommy and half from your daddy. So of course males and females will evolve at the same time

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Try this article -

Try this article - http://www.livescience.com/7613-origin-sex-pinned.html

"The study showed that two genes located at different spots on a chromosome can cast strawberry offspring as a single sex, a hermaphrodite or a neuter (neither male nor female, and essentially sterile). The researchers suspect the two genes could be responsible for one of the earliest stages of the transition from asexual to sexual beings."

This one - http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/10/29/63100.htm is more about animals (and humans) than plants.

"Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have found that the X and Y chromosomes evolved from a standard identical pair around 300 million years ago - shortly after the divergence of the evolutionary lines leading to mammals and birds."

So what was a pair of X's evolved into X and Y as the Y lost genes and recombined - that is scrambled it up.

 

All of which is likely too scientific for the ignorant ape, so don't be surprised if he doesn't respond well to facts.

You may have noticed I have gotten to the point I tell them to either read up on the science or don't come back.  I'm tired of dodos who can't be bothered to learn and argue from ignorance.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Harley

 

I think males and females evolve both together and to a lesser extent, separately. The idea we can only evolve in a singular and connected fashion is not entirely correct. The genome evolves constantly at multiple levels through a process of mutation and genetic drift and gene shuffling through meiosis. While males and females of a species must remain sufficiently connected to procreate, they definitely evolve independently within the constraints of genomic rules. To wit, male peacocks, silverback gorillas, humans, too, have sexual differences that are quite pronounced which serve to enhance procreative success.

Early aquatic Eukaryotes evolved by splitting at the cellular level and in some ways, that is what human sex cells still do. In a moist environment, cells split and recombine with the 23 genes of another individual's sex cells in order to trade resistance to diseases and parasites. It works so well we still function this way and the process is a direct reminder all life starts as one single cell and that we are, at root, colonies of symbiotic single celled organisms. 

The fact procreation is the gatekeeper of any organism's evolution means that any strange evolutionary quirk that might pull the sexes apart is an immediate failure. Only those genomic changes that enhance procreative success pass to the next generation. It's simple and relentless and indubitable. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
What is the YEC even saying ? /?

harleysportster wrote:

Got a creationist on FB that has decided to take me on. ( It has been funny so far). But he put forth the notion that evolution was not possible because the chances of a male and female evolving at the exact same time would have been TOO far out to be a coincidence.

I explained that we evolved from a male/female species prior to becoming Homo Sapiens, but he was not buying that.

What's a good argument to get rid of that one ?

Wrong move on his part. It is showing a basic ignorance of biology and no knowledge of endocrine hormones on homo-sapiens. Not to complicate matters but I almost dont understand what your YEC is asking, by his assertion. Who am I kidding, I have no clue what this guy is even suggesting. I feel like I did not read a word you posted in the OP. Sexual Differential (in Hominids populations) takes place by such different means. The male and the female are of a differing species? Thereby, Evolution couldnt have happened? Why is he framing the question in such a crazy-azz way to begin with ? What would be the window of time/timing in his thinking? Off hand. OMG, This guy would be laughed off the campus of almost any University in our country. What is he saying ? Help me out here.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Wrong

danatemporary wrote:
Wrong move on his part. It is showing a basic ignorance of biology and no knowledge of endocrine hormones on homo-sapiens. Not to complicate matters but I almost dont understand what your YEC is asking, by his assertion. Who am I kidding, I have no clue what this guy is even suggesting. I feel like I did not read a word you posted in the OP. Sexual Differential (in Hominids populations) takes place by such different means. The male and the female are of a differing species? Thereby, Evolution couldnt have happened? Why is he framing the question in such a crazy-azz way to begin with ? What would be the window of time/timing in his thinking? Off hand. OMG, This guy would be laughed off the campus of almost any University in our country. What is he saying ? Help me out here.

That's pretty much his arguments. All arguments from incredulity :

"In order for the human species to be here, a man and a woman would have had to evolve simultaneously and became equalled out at the same time.  (not sure what the hell equaled out means ? ? ) and technically it is too far out to think that we could have both had a male and female come into existence at the same time. The chances of the human race evolving into this intelligence is too far out to have happened without a creator."

It really is TOO dumb to respond to. But, he typed that out so smugly like he had gotten me, so I am gonna have some fun with this one.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: All of which is

cj wrote:

 

All of which is likely too scientific for the ignorant ape, so don't be surprised if he doesn't respond well to facts.

You may have noticed I have gotten to the point I tell them to either read up on the science or don't come back.  I'm tired of dodos who can't be bothered to learn and argue from ignorance.

 

LOL. I don't have much patience with these creationist types myself. I think I argue with them in the hopes of other people seeing it. A friend made a post on their wall about Atheism, and this guy (must be on their friends list) started out with the "something can not come from nothing" nonsense and so I had to respond.

He then promised me that if I were to try and argue with him, I would get utterly destroyed ( I'm real terrified of that one !) and the game began.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Well, this one would stump

 Well, this one would stump me. I would have to say I just don't know. Of course my lack of understanding doesn't mean that a god did it.

If you dig further I would like to understand.

 

My legacy god-soaked brain got this from the above posts.

It is a natural development that strengthened the species due to the merger of separate chromosomes. The same species started to mutate into complementary sex organs.

and/or different species became sexual partners

and/or it happened at the micro-organism level and continued from there.

 

Is all this guessing? Is there any real concrete evidence for the development of "viva la difference"?

 

I will take some time and read CJ articles. Don't want to get whacked with her ruler.  

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:He

harleysportster wrote:

He then promised me that if I were to try and argue with him, I would get utterly destroyed ( I'm real terrified of that one !) and the game began.

Oh? Is he going to make you laugh until you can't walk?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Your YEC seems to have a

Your YEC seems to have a misunderstanding of just how gradual the process is. They seem to think that there was one very massive mutation along many lines to create the diverse species. That's simply not what happens. I'll let Professor Farnsworth take over from here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

Our parents are much like we are, and this is true of every single one of our ancestors. If you take a picture of a bonobo chimp, and of a human of the same right, in a similar position, and run some software on it so that it takes approximately one minute to 'fade' from one picture to the other, you will get a better idea of how the process works (while bonobo chimps are NOT OUR ANCESTORS, nor is any modern primate, they were likely rather similar based on the fossils we have found, and the similarity in our respective genomes). There was likely an ancestor that resembled every single frame (all 1440 frames) of this gradual morphing. That is how males and females evolved simultaneously. Very, slowly! If it happened quickly (suddenly, homo habilis gives birth to homo erectus BAM one shot) then reproductive isolation may be in the way of furthering that lineage. However, since there is no such quick change. 

 

EDIT - To add to this, whenever you view a drawing of the evolutionary lineage of any species, there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or more, generations between EACH one, and the change from parent to offspring is almost always very minor. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote: Well,

ex-minister wrote:

 Well, this one would stump me. I would have to say I just don't know. Of course my lack of understanding doesn't mean that a god did it.

If you dig further I would like to understand.

 

My legacy god-soaked brain got this from the above posts.

It is a natural development that strengthened the species due to the merger of separate chromosomes. The same species started to mutate into complementary sex organs.

and/or different species became sexual partners

and/or it happened at the micro-organism level and continued from there.

 

Is all this guessing? Is there any real concrete evidence for the development of "viva la difference"?

 

I will take some time and read CJ articles. Don't want to get whacked with her ruler.  

 

Could be fun....

Seriously, your post reminded me of some research I did for a test.  Strangest test ever.  The professor gave us the questions in advance, then test day we were to write our answers without cheat sheets.  When you fill up one of those "Blue books" you know it wasn't an easy test.

Any way, my research was on the black aphid in Europe.  A major agricultural pest.  And the why is because of its reproductive pattern.  It is born in the spring after wintering in tree bark.  They immediately drop down to the spring foliage - preferably on a beet or similar crop field.  They are parthenogenic - born pregnant and have 12 to 13 egg laying sessions immediately.  Followed a few weeks later by another 12-13 egg laying sessions.  All of the aphids from these eggs are born pregnant.  You can imagine the bug explosion, I hope?  So then, in the fall, after the farmer has blasted them with every pesticide he can, the remnants produce one last egg laying session that has male and female offspring and fly back to the trees where they reproduce sexually and lay eggs in the bark to be born in the spring.

See the advantage?  Only those resistant to pesticides and biocides reproduce in the fall and they exchange genes with male aphids - the sons of female aphids who also survived the pesticide onslaught.  This bug is so successful because they can reproduce sexually when it matters most - after surviving a warm season. 

This is a huge advantage over aphids that only produce parthenogenically.  And why there are so many sexually reproducing species.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Always remember: when

Always remember: when dealing with creationists, talk.origins is your friend: http://www.talkorigins.org/

I'll let you practice searching the archives for this specific creationist claim and its rebuttal.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that this is one of those "Tide comes in, tide goes out", "How the fuck did they manage to misunderstand it to the point that the question literally makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view?"

Basically, the creationist so badly misconstrues evolution that they cannot even form questions of it that have anything at all to do with *actual* evolutionary theory.

To see this clearly, remember that a central part of evolutionary theory is the idea of universal common descent. All life, if you trace it back, came from a single ancestor.

So, if all life comes from a single ancestor, and we are all its descendants, then you can literally walk back on your family tree from where you are right now, back through time right to the origin of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (aka 'LUCA', and incidentally not ADAM). So, if we are *talking about evolutionary theory*, then males and females *must* have shared a common ancestor. So they *must* have *split* from this common ancestor to become males and females.

The creationist still has in his/her mind that all 'kinds' were created separately, and, yeah, maybe there's some 'micro' evolution after that, but fundamentally, each 'kind' was created by God from *nothing*, and certainly not from a common ancestor.

The creationist literally believes in the Adam and Eve story. Yes, I know it sounds retarded, but yes, they literally believe it.

So, creationist sees two saplings growing into two trees, and doesn't think it makes sense that they would at some point combine together to form a 'new kind' of tree from two completely separately created tree 'kinds'. Thus, "How did males and females evolve so perfectly in synch that they could mate? Shouldn't each 'kind' have evolved in a completely unplanned way, so that the odds of being able to combine together at some point are so ridiculously small that it's incredible anyone would actually believe that?"

The creationist fails to understand that the theory of evolution is not about two (or three, or a million) saplings joining together, but instead is about all life today being the outer leaves of a single tree that goes back through time to the origin of life from a single 'seed' cell. (And, in fact, this metaphor I've given is itself an oversimplification in order to save some time and typing effort on my part.)

Male and female sexes of modern species *split* from each other way the fuck back when sexual reproduction first evolved in single celled plants and animals. In fact, I'm not sure of the exact details, but I'm pretty sure it has evolved multiple times more or less independently, although that number is thought to be fairly small (certainly less than twenty; probably closer to five-ish).

From this single-celled sexually reproducing ancestral species, evolution proceeded to introduce more and more differences between the two different (but completely intertwined and interdependent) lineages of sexual reproductive cells. This is called sexual dimorphism, and if the creationist hasn't heard that term (guaranteed), then they forfeit the right to be taken seriously in their self-imposed ignorance.

Basically, creationist, understand evolution before you claim to know it is wrong. Read a book. Watch a video. Wake up to reality.

Also, learn about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect so you can stop proving it repeatedly. (Actually, ironically, by learning about it and subsequently stopping from spewing confident ignorance, they would in fact be adding additional support to it.)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Thus far

Thus far, he has failed to address any of my talking points. (Why am I not surprised ?). He has posted links to creationist websites saying evolution is false and I came back with :"Answer my questions." He came back last night with : "YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE THAT SOMETHING JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING ! "

What happened to the guy that was going to " utterly destroy me?" I'll have to wait and see what happens.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I recall reading a study

I recall reading a study which suggested that multiple genders was the result of a virus.

People like this are only worth responding to in public, when there's a good sized audience. They are so ridiculously ignorant that you can never convince them, short of isolating them and de-brainwashing them, a finicky and time consuming process at best. Best you can do is illustrate their ignorance for the audience, hence ensuring there is one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Thus

harleysportster wrote:

Thus far, he has failed to address any of my talking points. (Why am I not surprised ?). He has posted links to creationist websites saying evolution is false and I came back with :"Answer my questions." He came back last night with : "YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE THAT SOMETHING JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING ! "

What happened to the guy that was going to " utterly destroy me?" I'll have to wait and see what happens.

I wouldn't even let them go there. If the argument is about evolution, don't bring the origin of the universe into it. I hate, yes absolutely HATE, when creationists tie the big bang theory, the forming of heavy elements, the origin of our solar system, the Earth, and the origin of life itself into arguments about evolution. It just makes it impossible to focus on one point to explain everything, and helps creationists perpetuate the absolute crap (that THEY made up) that all of these things fall under the umbrella of "evolution". 

Don't let them dodge the questions. Also, as the poster above me said, try to get an audience for these bad boys. You're not going to convince them of much unfortunately, especially if they enter the argument with a hostile attitude, rather than an open mind. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
I have read CJ articles.

I have read CJ articles.

First Article
http://www.livescience.com/7613-origin-sex-pinned.html

Second Article
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/10/29/63100.htm


The second one one I liked better due to its detail. The second one actually disagrees with the first one on when the sex chromosome developed. The second one was written in 1999 and the first in 2008. So the first one wasn't up on the news. The articles clearly state this is a lot of guess work. I think the second article indicates they looked at fossils with DNA but I think soft tissue surviving 300m years is unlikely, so I don't know what they are actually referring to. Anyone that could address that would be helpful. I know there some soft tissue that can go back to early man but seems quite a stretch to go back 300m years.

I have clipped significant statements from each article below and it prompts me to ask questions rather than satisfies my curiosity.

livescience.com wrote:

We all came from hermaphrodites, organisms with both male and female reproductive organs. And though the origin traces back more than 100 million years, biologists have scratched their heads over how and why the separate male and female sexes evolved.


The researchers suspect the two genes could be responsible for one of the earliest stages of the transition from asexual to sexual beings.


Sex chromosomes … for the male and female sexes, for placental mammals and marsupials likely originated between 166 million and 145 million years ago.


"Within flowering plants, separate sexes is thought to have evolved from hermaphroditism independently and repeatedly among lineages, so there is no one specific date for the evolution of sex chromosomes in plants."


Offspring that inherit both fertility versions are hermaphrodites and can self-breed, while plants that inherit one fertility and one sterility version become either male or female. (A female would result from a sterile male and fertile female combination of genes.) Those that get both sterility versions of the genes are considered neuters and can't reproduce, so they ultimately die out.


While the two sex-determining genes are close to one another on the proto-sex chromosomes, the researchers say they are not completely linked. That's why the strawberry offspring can get such a wild mix of the genes.


On our sex chromosomes, for instance, this mixing and matching is not possible (or at least very rare), because the female chromosome is one unit and so is the male sex chromosome.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life


170 million years ago was the earliest salamanders, newts, cryptoclidid & elasmosaurid plesiosaurs, and cladotherian mammals. Saurodpod dinosaurs diversify. The latter was a large animal/dinosaur. I think sexes would have been sorted out by then. The article is not clear what species the sex division occurred just somewhere between 166 and 145 million years. Were the cladotheria mammals hermaphrodites? Did they reproduce asexually?


I don't see any evidence that a human hermaphrodite could impregnate themselves. Is a human hermaphrodite vestigial evidence like a tail, or a genetic aberration, like a third arm?

abc science wrote:

Research published in this week's Science reveals that the Y chromosome developed from an X-like ancestor around 300 million years ago.


Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have found that the X and Y chromosomes evolved from a standard identical pair around 300 million years ago - shortly after the divergence of the evolutionary lines leading to mammals and birds.


"The first events that created the sex chromosomes had been thought to have occurred at least 170 million years ago," says researcher Dr David Page. "We're pushing that back another 100 million years or so."


"By fossil digging on the sex chromosomes, we were able to reconstruct the four events that drove sex chromosomes into their distinctive X and Y forms, and to date when these events occurred during evolution," says Lahn. "The farther back in time we look, the more similar X and Y appear, boosting the theory that they arose from a pair of identical autosomes."


Today the X is still home to thousands of genes, but the Y has only a measly few dozen. Nevertheless, many genes on the human Y chromosome have homologues (analogous genes) on the X chromosome. The presence of these X-Y genes reinforces the idea that the Y chromosome developed from an X-like ancestor.


19 genes shared between the X and Y served as the "fossils" that helped Lahn and Page to reconstruct the evolutionary history of sex chromosomes.


This article disagrees with the first article which is older. It says it is 300m years not 170m years.
350 million years ago there were sharks, ratfish and hagfish.
340m - diversification of amphibians. 280 - beetles.

At what point was everything reproducing asexually? I know that the naughty bits and soft tissue don't fossilize well, so we may never know.

Those plants and animals that are male and female do they all carry the X and Y chromosomes or is there another way to make this separation?

Mammals has always been male/female, right? Even the name "mammal" indicates that.


19 genes are shared between X & Y. Is that confirmation bias? If I matched the X gene to an entirely different chromosome other than Y would I see any matching?

AtheistExtremist wrote about how male/females evolve separately. I think that is through sexual selection (vs natural selection) and I would expect all that separate info would be on the X or Y chromosome. We are the "same" on the other chromosomes.


So the solid stuff IMO is evolution has overwhelming evidence in its favor. Life started from a single cell and asexually split. Now we have male and females. However, we still have organisms that don't need male/female counterparts, probably some plants. Not sure if there is a reptiles or such that can reproduce asexually. There are some species that do swap the male/female sexual roles (not just the stereotypical roles). So this would seem a better way to debate a theist. We can't go back and convincingly prove this is when there was a male and female sex began (They do fit together very well which seems odd to me even now how they arose). But pointing to life and seeing how it doesn't follow strict male/female roles is a way to question "Why would a male God create this kind of confusion?". A theist would probably just go to the devil did it and be satisfied.


I don't think this is a very good spot to debate evolution with a theist. I would say the science isn't in and arguing like it is is not conducive to convincing them. There appears to be way too much guess work and only someone who believes in evolution would find it somewhat satisfying. I am trying to think if there is something on the theist side that is considered by them a similar guess work. Maybe how did Noah get 2 unclean/7 clean animals and fresh water fish on the Ark and how did he maintain them for a year. How did the fresh water come back and how did he place the fish back into all the fresh water lakes? If as a nonbeliever, I debated that to determine whether I believed in Jehovah/Jesus I would get lost in the weeds and remain unconvinced.


Harley,
Have you had any progress with that guy?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Thus

harleysportster wrote:

Thus far, he has failed to address any of my talking points. (Why am I not surprised ?). He has posted links to creationist websites saying evolution is false and I came back with :"Answer my questions." He came back last night with : "YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE THAT SOMETHING JUST POPPED INTO EXISTENCE OUT OF NOTHING ! "

What happened to the guy that was going to " utterly destroy me?" I'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

YOU HAVEN'T PROVED THERE IS A GOD AND WHO CREATED HIM OUT OF NOTHING AND THAT ONE OUT OF NOTHING AND THAT ONE OUT OF NOTHING.

LOL.

He is typical and like I referred to in another thread, that is how they argue with each other. If you start with non-material angels & demons & gods, talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns, dragons and everything can be wrapped up neatly with god did it, this is about all you can expect. But for me these "discussions" did chip away at my shaky foundation as a Christian. I could never admit defeat or had doubt. God might hear that and send me to hell, but the "still, small voice" was there and the doubt remained. I think as we put it out there, they know deep down in their heart we are right, at least some of the times. And the louder they yell  and the more they evade the question the more I am convinced we hit a sore spot. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Think of it this way, I'm

Think of it this way, I'm sure there were mutation of both male and female variety that mutated in such a way as to not be compatible with their respective opposite sex.  Those mutated individuals were unable to propagate their DNA and hence didn't evolve.  Only those that remained compatible with the opposite sex were able to continue.

Asking how we can possible have evolved to be compatible with the opposite sex is idiotic.  The short answer is that we couldn't have evolved otherwise.  It's analogous with asking how we could have evolved to breathe Oxygen...  or drink water...  there is no special reason for it, but the alternative is a not very conductive to your continuity.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I agree Ktulu, but I would

 I agree Ktulu, but I would not go this route to convince an YEC theist that evolution is true. We know some particulars of what did or must have happened and sex is one of those things, but there isn't a lot of concrete evidence from what I am seeing.

Looking at it from a former theist, I find DNA comparisons between species, vestigial traits, the fossil record, age of the universe far more convincing, and of course the now obvious myths of the bible. I recently had a dialog with a YEC creationist and helped him to move his goal post a bit. He had even rejected micro-evolution until I showed him lots of evidence. I gave him reference like talking origins for macro-evolution and said science doesn't see a difference between micro & macro. If I am not mistaken that was invented by the religious. This guy had put out a video saying Darwin was satanic.  He became less convinced of that after our discussion. I think only baby steps can be used and what constitutes evidence is probably the starting line.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I won't go through point by

I won't go through point by point, but I will try to answer a couple of questions.

 

ex-minister wrote:
I have read CJ articles.

170 million years ago was the earliest salamanders, newts, cryptoclidid & elasmosaurid plesiosaurs, and cladotherian mammals. Saurodpod dinosaurs diversify. The latter was a large animal/dinosaur. I think sexes would have been sorted out by then. The article is not clear what species the sex division occurred just somewhere between 166 and 145 million years. Were the cladotheria mammals hermaphrodites? Did they reproduce asexually?

 

You all are correct, sex evolution is very complex because it has happened many times in many species, plant and animal.  Animals of all types - from what I have read - evolved sexes once, very early on, and I believe, all animals are related to that one very early ancestor.  Snails can be hermaphroditic - with sex organs at opposite ends of the snail - and they "69" to breed.  (Apologies to the squeamish for being crude and I won't go any further with that idea-image.)  As I stated, aphids are parthenogenic which is not uncommon in the insects.  And you have bees and ants and such which breed sexually one time, then the queen produces daughters until she is ready to breed again when she produces males.  The female apparently "stores" the male offspring until the environmental conditions trigger male births.

I wouldn't have a clue about cladotheria mammals and whether they were hermaphroditic. 

 

ex-minister wrote:

I don't see any evidence that a human hermaphrodite could impregnate themselves. Is a human hermaphrodite vestigial evidence like a tail, or a genetic aberration, like a third arm?

 

Well, my funky reading habits are helpful here.  I read Freaks by Daniel Pratt Mannix this summer.  He was a sword swallower and personally knew many of the people in the side shows of the 30s - 50s.  The book is very positive and about the people, not their disabilities.  He talked about the hermaphrodites in the shows.  Most of them were "grifters", that is people who faked the disability.  From his descriptions, the fakes would be laughed out of the tent today.  But occasionally, you would see someone who was truly hermaphrodite.

Hermaphrodites are now medically called intersex.  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm has some information on the various abnormalities.  Note that these people often have hormonal problems, not chromosomal.  Whether they could have children or not would depend, I would imagine since the article does not specifically address it, on the internal organs and whether the external configurations cooperate. 

In humans, multiple sex chromosomes - XXXX, XXY, YY - are rare, but do happen.  Persons with these disorders may have severe deformities and are often or usually sterile.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/genetic-disorders-in-humans.html wrote:

Klinefelter Syndrome It is the most common sex-linked genetic disorder in which males have an extra X chromosome. Hence, this disorder is also known as 47, XXY or XXY syndrome. The most common symptom is infertility. Besides this, males with the XXY syndrome have impaired physical, language and social developments. As these individuals produce less testosterone than other males, such teenagers may be less muscular and have less facial hair than their peers. The presence of the extra X chromosome can't be undone. However, testosterone replacement therapy, a variety of therapeutic options like behavioral, speech and occupational therapy and educational treatments are the options available for those suffering from Klinefelter's syndrome.

XXXX Syndrome Also known as tetrasomy X, 48, XXXX or quadruple X, the XXXX syndrome is a chromosomal aneuploidy, that is, it arises due to a defect in meiosis. This happens when homologous chromosomes fail to separate during meiosis when the reproductive cells (sperms and eggs) are formed. This results in the presence of four instead of two X chromosomes in females. The symptoms of this disorder range from mild to severe. Physically, these women have epicanthic folds, flat nose bridge, cleft or highly arched palate, teeth and enamel defects. Delay in development of speech, language and motor skills is also found. 50% of women may have delayed or no puberty at all. Some may have menstrual irregularities and lack secondary sexual characteristics. Tetrasomy X females may have defects in vision, hearing, kidneys, circulatory system and nervous system. While many girls suffering from tetrasomy X lead a normal life, most of those who have problems are placed on estrogen treatment. Treatment is symptomatic and one may require occupational, speech and physical therapy as well. Prognosis is relatively good for those suffering from this disorder.

YY Syndrome As the name suggests, YY syndrome is the result of chromosomal aneuploidy due to which a male has an extra Y chromosome. Other than being noticeably taller than their peers, males suffering from this condition do not have any other unusual physical features. However, these individuals are at a risk of suffering from learning disabilities and delayed development of speech and language skills.

 

ex-minister wrote:

At what point was everything reproducing asexually? I know that the naughty bits and soft tissue don't fossilize well, so we may never know.

 

Hard to answer this question.  Do you mean - without mixing genetic material?  Even single-cell critters manage to mix genetic material at least occasionally.  No naughty bits required.  Mixing/sharing material has likely occurred since the very first replicating molecules.  And I know it occurs in pond algae - we studied them in high school.  The algae strands line up, match cell walls, then the walls open and the chromosomes intermingle.  Exchanging genetic material is so successful because it gives the critter a huge advantage.

 

ex-minister wrote:

Those plants and animals that are male and female do they all carry the X and Y chromosomes or is there another way to make this separation?

 

Horticulturists call this self-pollinating.  The plants have male and female flowers, the male flowers can and often do pollinate the female flowers.  Some of the female flowers may be cross-pollinated by wind blown or insect carried pollen.

Snails have male organs at one end and female at the other with the appropriate separation of gametes.  I believe this is the strategy by other hemaphroditic organisms, but I have not bothered to look it up.

 

ex-minister wrote:

Mammals has always been male/female, right? Even the name "mammal" indicates that.

 

Yes.

 

ex-minister wrote:

19 genes are shared between X & Y. Is that confirmation bias? If I matched the X gene to an entirely different chromosome other than Y would I see any matching?

 

No, 19 genes is not confirmation bias, only random chance during the evolutionary process.  And no, the X chromosome would not match other chromosomes except in very short sections that are called "codons" - a combination of three nucleic acids.  Since there are only 4 nucleic acids, there are a limited number of codons.  However, genes may be - and often are - hundreds of codons long.  So exact matches along the entire length of a gene are extremely uncommon even between paired genes.  The genes on an X are not found on other chromosomes.

 

ex-minister wrote:

AtheistExtremist wrote about how male/females evolve separately. I think that is through sexual selection (vs natural selection) and I would expect all that separate info would be on the X or Y chromosome. We are the "same" on the other chromosomes.

 

That would be correct as far as I know.  Male/female differences are the influence of our X and Y chromosomes rather than any of the other chromosomes.

 

ex-minister wrote:

I don't think this is a very good spot to debate evolution with a theist. I would say the science isn't in and arguing like it is is not conducive to convincing them. There appears to be way too much guess work and only someone who believes in evolution would find it somewhat satisfying. I am trying to think if there is something on the theist side that is considered by them a similar guess work. Maybe how did Noah get 2 unclean/7 clean animals and fresh water fish on the Ark and how did he maintain them for a year. How did the fresh water come back and how did he place the fish back into all the fresh water lakes? If as a nonbeliever, I debated that to determine whether I believed in Jehovah/Jesus I would get lost in the weeds and remain unconvinced.

Harley, Have you had any progress with that guy?

 

I agree that debating a theist on any science topic is usually a waste of time and energy.  Most of the questions - not just sex - are extremely complex.  There isn't a sound bite answer.  That is why I usually make disparaging remarks about attending a few classes at a community college or at least doing some reading.  And not just Behe.  Who may be an okay biochemist, but he isn't a cell biologist or an evolutionary biologist.  (If any one wants to know, Behe's last published article in a peer reviewed journal did point out some interesting correlations in type and frequency of mutations.  Got some good support from other biologists/biochemists.  Just to show if good science is done, it doesn't matter what the beliefs are of the person doing the science.)  The creationists usually won't bother to read and learn.  So your suggestion of asking other unanswerable questions is also a good idea.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I also found this article,

I also found this article, which seems to me to be very clear and it specifically address amniotes - birds, mammals, reptiles - http://www.pnas.org/content/103/48/18031.full

Quote:

The ancestral state in amniotes is likely temperature-dependent sex determination, which is still found in many extant reptilian species, such as crocodilians and some turtles and lizards (1). From this ancestral state, genetic sex determination evolved in birds, which utilize the ZZ:ZW system, and also independently in mammals, which use the XX:XY system. The ZZ:ZW system is also found in all snake species. The split of the mammalian lineage from the rest of amniotes occurred ≈315 million years ago, whereas the split between Lepidosauria (including snakes and lizards) and Archosauromorpha (encompassing crocodilians, birds, and possibly turtles) occurred ≈260 million years ago.

 

The article goes on to explain how sex chromosomes are not the same as bird sex chromosomes and why the genetic information supports independent evolution.

"Fossil" genes in genetic research is illustrated in this article.  The authors talk about how various chromosomes on different genes can compare and contrast with other species.  This allows them to trace the evolution of genetic material. 

 

Quote:

They found that genes present on snake sex chromosomes mapped to autosomes in both mammals and birds. Additionally, genes from bird sex chromosomes mapped to an autosome in the snake. These results demonstrated unambiguously a separate origin of snake sex chromosomes compared with the sex chromosomes in birds or mammals. Thus, the ZZ:ZW system has arisen at least twice during amniote evolution, once in the ancestors of birds and once in the ancestors of snakes. Furthermore, the autosome being converted to sex chromosomes in birds is different from that in snakes.

 

"Autosome" is simply not a sex chromosome.  A picture to help visualize:

 

The paper goes on to say that the mutation was for females in snakes and birds and for males in mammals.  The Z and X chromosomes continue to exchange material with other chromosomes while the W and Y wither as they can not exchange.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 331
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:He had

ex-minister wrote:

He had even rejected micro-evolution until I showed him lots of evidence. I gave him reference like talking origins for macro-evolution and said science doesn't see a difference between micro & macro. If I am not mistaken that was invented by the religious. 

I believe you would be correct. The religious attempt to pull many unrelated fields into evolution. The only commonality between them really is their incompatibility with most, or perhaps all, holy books. The school of "6 types of evolution" which I've seen spouted by Kent Hovind, and in a Chick tract (which referenced Hovind in its current iteration, but I'm not sure if the original pre-dated Hovind or not, so I'm unsure of the origin of that lie). The first 4 have nothing to do with evolution at all (I'm trying to be brief, so read up if you like. It tries to pull cosmology, abiogenesis, and the formation of heavy elements into the mix). Hovind is a complete nut...and in prison for fraud.

The last 2 in his spiel are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. It's all evolution. Genes mix, and they occasionally mutate. If a sexually reproducing species is completely isolated reproductively, after many generations, they will no longer be able to reproduce with one another if re-united after a large number of generations of genetic change (speciation). It has been observed and documented in a lab that this does happen with, I believe, insects (our own lifespans are a little too short to properly experiment on anything with a longer life-span..but it could be possible in the future to reach a conclusion were experiments to begin now). I fully recommend at least skimming through some info on speciation (as a lot of people find it even difficult to define what divides one species from another). Creationists love to use the word "kind" and state adamantly that each animal reproduces after its "kind". If you can demonstrate that after many generations of isolation from a common ancestor, all of a sudden something is of a different "kind" (unable to reproduce), you have won the argument (whether your opponent admits it or not). You have demonstrated what they refer to as "macro-evolution"....at least that's what they seem to mean by it. 

I don't have the time right now, but I am looking forward to properly reading CJ's whole post after a brief skim-through. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.