So you want a REAL challenge to evolution?

[columbusdude82]

Whenever I read some attack on evolution, whether on this board, or elsewhere, it always contains the same tired old complaints from creationists about fossils and "macroevolution," and frenzied rants about "monkeys." I will never understand why evolution-bashers are so afraid of monkeys. There are so many, much more powerful arguments to be made, right under their noses!

I've taken pity on these folks, so I'm deciding to help them out a bit. If there is interest in this thread, I will continually post REAL challenges to evolution, taking care not to use examples or jargon that are too difficult.

Any way, here's challenge number 1. Think about it.

Challenge number 1 to evolution: SEX!!!

Why did sex evolve? Why did evolution allow for two sexes, not 1 or 3? Why are (almost) all members of sexually reproducing species either one sex or the other? Why aren't we sometimes one sex and at other times the other sex? Why can't we switch back and forth from one sex to the other? And why don't we reproduce asexually.

That's a lot of questions, so let's just think about the first: Why did sex evolve in the first place?

Think about it: a gene in a sexually-reproducing organism has a 50% of being in his/her children, 25% of being in the grandchildren, 12.5% of being in the great-grandchildren, etc... on to vanishingly small probabilities.

A gene in an asexual organism, that makes identical copies of itself, has a 100% chance of being in all of the organism's descendants.

Therefore, a gene that can turn its "owner" into being asexual can increase its survival tremendously into posterity. So why don't our genes "rebel" against sexual reproduction? Why don't they turn us asexual? And if, long time ago, our remote ancestors reproduced asexually, how did sex come about? And how did our selfish genes allow such an affront to their power?

The creationist answer is simple: God did it. We reproduce sexually because God made man in his image and woman from man's rib. He also made the animals sexually-reproducing so Noah could take two of each on the ark. (If God had made animals asexual before the flood, Noah could have saved a lot of room on the ark because he'd only have to bring one of each kind!)

So there's a REAL challenge to evolution. Think about it

[columbusdude82]

Colossus, you want REAL challenges to evolution? Forget that creationist fool. I'm giving them here.

Challenge number 2 to evolution: GAYS!!!

In every human society ever known, some small proportion of people grow up to be attracted physically and emotionally to the same sex. The fact that this is present in every culture suggests a deeper, biological (i.e. genetic) root. So does the fact that there seem to be twice as many gay men as lesbians.

So if there is a genetic cause for homosexuality (not a "gay gene" per se, but a group of genes that, working in conjunction, make a person more likely to be gay), that must be a major argument against evolution.

For if these genes make a person less likely to mate with the opposite sex, then they are dealing a death blow to their own survival in future generations. Thus, you'd expect natural selection to work against these genes and weed them out, since they make their "owners" less likely to have offspring. What gives?

Christianity's answer is simple. From Romans 1, "24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Notice, by the way, how this "explains" only male homosexuality, not lesbianism.

[tonymctones]

Actually if you think about it an asexual organism that is an exact copy of itself has less of a chance of survival. A species with many different versions has alot higher chance of survival b/c one thing cant come along and wipe it out if its an exact copy if one is vulnerable then all are vulnerable. so therefor maybe the asexual organism evolved to give its species a better chance for survival, all speculation though.

As for the second one of gays, lets run with your group of genes scenario they inherit their genes from their parents. So lets say that If a women in lets say with a certain set of genes lets call group A and a man with a certain set of genes lets call group B bread they have a small probability of producing a homosexual. There might not be enough pressure on the parents to cause a change speaking in terms of evolution. There probably would be enough pressure on the gay child to change but whos to say that the homosexual genes are not being weeded out. Although i havent done any research on this subject to be honest

All these are theory based I would like to see you address more hard science based subjects plz. although i do enjoy the theories as well

[columbusdude82]

Actually if you think about it an asexual organism that is an exact copy of itself has less of a chance of survival. A species with many different versions has alot higher chance of survival b/c one thing cant come along and wipe it out if its an exact copy if one is vulnerable then all are vulnerable. so therefor maybe the asexual organism evolved to give its species a better chance for survival, all speculation though.

As for the second one of gays, lets run with your group of genes scenario they inherit their genes from their parents. So lets say that If a women in lets say with a certain set of genes lets call group A and a man with a certain set of genes lets call group B bread they have a small probability of producing a homosexual. There might not be enough pressure on the parents to cause a change speaking in terms of evolution. There probably would be enough pressure on the gay child to change but whos to say that the homosexual genes are not being weeded out. Although i havent done any research on this subject to be honest

All these are theory based I would like to see you address more hard science based subjects plz. although i do enjoy the theories as well

Good post

[tonymctones]

Good post

Gracias

[I ETA PI]

Of course evolution theory has scientific flaws like every scientific theory, but it seems pretty obvious that our biological ancestors are apes.

This is the big mistake of creationists, they think evolution theory threatens their believes. If my believes are dependent on the current scientific findings, I may as well discard them alltogether.

evolution is slow to evolve as a term.  That is a problem as science advances.
Darwinism is outdated and being "evolved." 

Check out the mega society or ISCID.  There are societies out there where the leading minds of the world discuss evolution, complexity, design, reality constructs, etc. 
Hell, even IHIQS has some decent "debates" on what is "all this."

[tonymctones]

Of course evolution theory has scientific flaws like every scientific theory, but it seems pretty obvious that our biological ancestors are apes.

This is the big mistake of creationists, they think evolution theory threatens their believes. If my believes are dependent on the current scientific findings, I may as well discard them alltogether.

well put

[The Luke]

Quick reply:

1) SEX
Sex evolved as a specialization adaption that enhances survival rates and so is self-propagating. For advanced/highly-specialized/highly-developed organisms sexual reproduction is simply more efficient. It's just better to have one highly reproductively capable parent (who is by virtue of their reproductive capacity more expendable) who doesn't carry the metabolic demand of gestation, and one who does. Mathematical models bare this out, however there is no reproductive advantage to a specific third gender and so three-gender reproduction has not evolved.

2) GAYS
As I mentioned in part 1 above, a specific third gender offers no discernible reproductive advantage... however a hijacked "helper parent" does impart a significant reproductive advantage. In the wild a female with a homosexual brother has a distinct reproductive advantage as the homosexual male sibling, unable to reproduce, becomes a de facto third parent to his sisters children (his closest genetic progeny). I laymans terms; a male third parent with no offspring becomes a provider for his closest genetic relatives; his sisters children.

For this to hold true there would have to be some very specific traits genetically-linked traits underlying the expression of male homosexuality:

-exclusive male homosexuality would have to be significantly more prevalent than exclusive female homosexuality as a female "third parent" only offers a reproductive advantage in highly sexually dimorphic human populations (the gorilla family model: dominant male and harem of females).
The science says the figures are probably 8-11% for exclusive male homosexuality as compared with only 2-3% exclusive female homosexuality,  which supports a genetic cause of homosexuality.

-male homosexuality would have to be inherited along the female line. Obviously this must hold true as exclusively homosexual males do not reproduce in the wild... however there is more to it than that. Male homosexuality is strongly linked with maternal inheritance, with the vast majority of homosexual men having an incidence of male homosexuality in their maternal line vastly greater than the incidence of male homosexuality in the general population.

As would be expected, male homosexuality is also strongly linked to increased fertility in the female line... the same genes that make brothers homosexual make their sisters hyper fertile (increased incidence of twins) in order to take advantage of the "helper parent", which in turn spreads and propagates the "gay" genes.
Further evidence of this linkage can be seen in the (generally) decreased masculinization of homosexuals... they are girly and mothering, not brutish hyper-males who would be a danger to children.

So from a Darwinian/evolutionary/reproductive standpoint male homosexuality (and to a lesser extent characterised by its lesser incidence: female homosexuality) are specialised reproductive tactics involving the co-operation of individually non-advantageous genes incorporated into an on-the-whole advantageous gene-complex (ie: homosexuality is a reproductive dead end, as is hyper fertility in females... but male homosexuality coupled with female hyper fertility works in a synergistic manner and does propagate in the gene pool).



Far from disproving evolution (which simply can't be done as it is a mathematical certainty), both digender sexual reproduction and homosexuality are actually inevitable byproducts of Darwinian processes.

Similarly, there are evolutionary reasons underlying ALL human behaviour... the only people who doubt evolution are those who don't understand it. If you think evolution might be wrong, consider the fact that ALL the best-educated, most intelligent and intellectually gifted people in the world are certain of its correctness... then consider the score of your own IQ test.

The Luke

[Deicide]

Quick reply:

1) SEX
Sex evolved as a specialization adaption that enhances survival rates and so is self-propagating. For advanced/highly-specialized/highly-developed organisms sexual reproduction is simply more efficient. It's just better to have one highly reproductively capable parent (who is by virtue of their reproductive capacity more expendable) who doesn't carry the metabolic demand of gestation, and one who does. Mathematical models bare this out, however there is no reproductive advantage to a specific third gender and so three-gender reproduction has not evolved.

2) GAYS
As I mentioned in part 1 above, a specific third gender offers no discernible reproductive advantage... however a hijacked "helper parent" does impart a significant reproductive advantage. In the wild a female with a homosexual brother has a distinct reproductive advantage as the homosexual male sibling, unable to reproduce, becomes a de facto third parent to his sisters children (his closest genetic progeny). I laymans terms; a male third parent with no offspring becomes a provider for his closest genetic relatives; his sisters children.

For this to hold true there would have to be some very specific traits genetically-linked traits underlying the expression of male homosexuality:

-exclusive male homosexuality would have to be significantly more prevalent than exclusive female homosexuality as a female "third parent" only offers a reproductive advantage in highly sexually dimorphic human populations (the gorilla family model: dominant male and harem of females).
The science says the figures are probably 8-11% for exclusive male homosexuality as compared with only 2-3% exclusive female homosexuality,  which supports a genetic cause of homosexuality.

-male homosexuality would have to be inherited along the female line. Obviously this must hold true as exclusively homosexual males do not reproduce in the wild... however there is more to it than that. Male homosexuality is strongly linked with maternal inheritance, with the vast majority of homosexual men having an incidence of male homosexuality in their maternal line vastly greater than the incidence of male homosexuality in the general population.

As would be expected, male homosexuality is also strongly linked to increased fertility in the female line... the same genes that make brothers homosexual make their sisters hyper fertile (increased incidence of twins) in order to take advantage of the "helper parent", which in turn spreads and propagates the "gay" genes.
Further evidence of this linkage can be seen in the (generally) decreased masculinization of homosexuals... they are girly and mothering, not brutish hyper-males who would be a danger to children.

So from a Darwinian/evolutionary/reproductive standpoint male homosexuality (and to a lesser extent characterised by its lesser incidence: female homosexuality) are specialised reproductive tactics involving the co-operation of individually non-advantageous genes incorporated into an on-the-whole advantageous gene-complex (ie: homosexuality is a reproductive dead end, as is hyper fertility in females... but male homosexuality coupled with female hyper fertility works in a synergistic manner and does propagate in the gene pool).



Far from disproving evolution (which simply can't be done as it is a mathematical certainty), both digender sexual reproduction and homosexuality are actually inevitable byproducts of Darwinian processes.

Similarly, there are evolutionary reasons underlying ALL human behaviour... the only people who doubt evolution are those who don't understand it. If you think evolution might be wrong, consider the fact that ALL the best-educated, most intelligent and intellectually gifted people in the world are certain of its correctness... then consider the score of your own IQ test.

The Luke

Some friends of Beach Bum and Colossus as well as misfirings of evolution:

[Necrosis]

lukes explanation about homosexual is about as tautological as one can get, horrible explanation that adds no new information. the gay brother doesnt have to become a thrid parent and nothing assures us of this, on top of that, you are suggesting the gay genes are acting altruistic on a molecular level, sacrificing there propagation.

your a tit.

[The Luke]

lukes explanation about homosexual is about as tautological as one can get, horrible explanation that adds no new information. the gay brother doesnt have to become a thrid parent and nothing assures us of this, on top of that, you are suggesting the gay genes are acting altruistic on a molecular level, sacrificing there propagation.

your a tit.

...the genes still propagate through the sisters children don't they?

This is the biggest problem with the anti-evolution agenda, the people picking holes in evolutionary theory don't understand it.

Genes aren't capable of altruism, they are genes... they are no more capable of deliberate action than a stone. They don't think through their strategies, they are simply selected by natural selection. That's all evolution is; the non-random selection of naturally occurring replicators... there's no chance or thought involved.

A gene that made men infertile and females hyperfertile (or vice versa) would still propagate in the gene pool... just as human society as a whole has progressed technologically even though some individuals are Creationists/religious and incapable of rational thought.


Evolution by natural selection is the cornerstone of biology, and has been verified not only by exhaustive observation but also through mathematical models and game theory. If species differentiation didn't actually occur through the process of natural selection then mathematics itself would be inherently inconsistent... then all the mathematical theorems could be proved incorrect by working backwards from the error in evolution, then, by extension, all of physics; engineering; chemistry etc would come tumbling down bringing the fabric of the universe with it.

Yet to date I've never heard a Creationist attack the fundamental tenets of theoretical physics... all of which are equally inconsistent with scripture. For some reason they think they can learn off a few at-first apparently plausible rebuttals and substitute that for understanding in the field of biology.


For the record, the Genesis story isn't even internally consistent (read it): Firstly god creates the universe  ending with the creation of man on the sixth day, then immediately afterwards he begins the creation again building the universe around man in a further six days....

...Creationists aren't even aware of this, meaning they haven't even finished the first page of the Bible.

Biblical scholars are painfully aware of it, as the Bible creation myth is plainly recognised as the collation of two distinct competing creation myths (universe created for man; universe created around man). But both these stories are allegorical world-view myths shared by many ancient civilizations and spread by early migratory cultures... the Sumerians wrote it down at least 2,000 BC and passed it down to the Babylonians who passed it on to the Hebrews during the Jewish captivity in the sixth century BC (a full five hundred years AFTER the founding of Jerusalem).

The Bible is a mish-mash of history and horseshit... it's no substitute for understanding, but it is used as such by those who need a substitute for intelligence.


The Luke

[tonymctones]

lukes explanation about homosexual is about as tautological as one can get, horrible explanation that adds no new information. the gay brother doesnt have to become a thrid parent and nothing assures us of this, on top of that, you are suggesting the gay genes are acting altruistic on a molecular level, sacrificing there propagation.

your a tit.

I agree with you but it does sound pretty interesting Im wondering if there is any research in his theory?