Questions for evolutionists

<< < (3/3)

scienceteacheragain (February 25, 2009, 06:49:41 AM):
OK, I have re-read your question, and perhaps I understand what you are trying to insinuate:

That if everything was reproducing asexually, then suddenly an organism came about that reproduces sexually, then that one single individual would have nothing to reproduce with.

This is a bit more difficult to clearly answer because the question assumes a phenomenon that is impossible and is not implied by evolutionary theory (in fact, the opposite is true). That is that some new feature (sexual reproduction in this case) springs forth clearly, completely, and suddenly.
AcinonyxScepticus (February 25, 2009, 10:30:39 AM):
The origins of sexual reproduction are explored by CDK007 on YouTube. I watched this some time ago so I'll have to go back to the video for the details but I seem to recall that even if it arose by chance (which we know isn't what abiogenesis it about - it is about the known laws of chemistry, not pot luck), even if sexual reproduction rose in that way, the entity which possessed such a trait would have a huge selective advantage in that the mutation rate would sky-rocket compared to asexual reproduction, meaning that it would soon be the norm rather than the exception.

CDK007's origins series is absolutely first class, starting from abiogenesis and moving through the origin of the genetic code to natural selection and evolution. Check out some of his other videos here.


While I am trying to get more Christian friends to help answer all your questions (some valid), here is something for you - short answers/questions welcome :)


Allow me to respond with just a single question:
Even if we had not a single answer to any of these 15 questions, or a clue about how to find their answers (and for several of them we do, which a genuine effort to find out will reveal), how does that in any way warrant a belief in a god?

OHA, your post is definitely a Straw Man, but we are looking forward to your answers, as promised.


I'm also eager for answers. So far in all of the discussions, none have been forthcoming. We have all made time to answer OHA's questions so where is the honest attempt to reciprocate?

James
Mefiante (February 25, 2009, 12:20:37 PM):
I think the point of question No. 8 in OHA’s opening post , as pointed out by the erstwhile scienceteacherinexile (now “scienceteacherbackathome,” one suspects… ;D ), is to illustrate the apparent absurdity of a single sexually reproducing organism springing spontaneously into existence one day and having no partner to reproduce with. Of course, the question is the usual creationist/ID straw man because it is basically no different to the expectation that a reptile should sprout avian appendages and turn into a bird before one’s eyes. The earliest forms of sexual reproduction may have arisen from symbiotic arrangements that had progressed to the point where the symbiotes could no longer survive independently of each other (I have not yet watched James’s video link). The bottom line is that we don’t rightly know exactly how things got started. However, we do know that an omnipotent creator-god is hardly a satisfactory scientific answer because maybe, as the story goes, s/he made the world as a joke last Wednesday at teatime with a complete history and appropriate sets of memories for everyone. Obviously, the latter hypothesis is scientifically meritless for being unfalsifiable. Nor does it tell us anything useful about the world.

In a deeper sense, that question No. 8 is indicative of the way that religious people often think in dichotomous, polar, either/or, black/white ways without seeing the bigger picture which usually is considerably more complicated and colourful. The question is a thinly disguised version of the which-came-first,-chicken-or-egg poser, and there are many variants that all implicitly assume that the two things being contrasted have always obtained in their fully formed state. In other words, our (current) inability to provide an answer to the question does not actually establish what many religious people think it establishes because the implied premises from which the question is asked are fraudulent, namely that if we can’t explain it then it had to be god’s doing. A consistent approach coupled with a rigorous appraisal in the same vein should prompt one earnestly to examine the question as to whether a god or sapient man came first. It is the answer to that one, as conditioned by the respective premises, which distinguishes the religious from the irreligious.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page