Evolutionists: Please Explain

[Paul of Eugene]

Hi, Helen. Thanks for contributing some interesting thoughts, as usual . .

You wrote: "It really doesn't matter to us Theistic evolutionists whether or not it is completely a natural phenomenon for the evolutionary path to develop chromosones and sex or whether it took God's intervention."

...and I realized that it is the theistic evolutionist who is really appealing to the "God of the gaps." Wherever there is a gap in human interpretation, stick God. He'll do in a pinch until you get a better answer...!

I think you realize I believe God designed the whole universe to be able to produce life by virtue of the design of the universe itself; I personally feel no need for any "God of the Gaps" argument. I merely said this in order to show creationists against evolution that the mere assertion that there are unbridgeable gaps doesn't prove anything against evolution as long as they believe in a God Who actively promotes life anyway.

Nor does the item have to do with the benefits of sex in many ways, but with what this thread is about: the evolution of sex. Evolutionary theory declares that the primary goal of any organism is to pass on its genes. Sexual reproduction divides this goal in half, so to speak, and thus should not have been 'selected for', even assuming that there was some way an organism would somehow have reproductive cells with only half the required genetic material. Think about that, Paul. How did that happen?

Thank you for the invitation to think about that. I will follow your suggestion and think about that. There. Here is the result of my thinking:

(a) Way back when cellular life was still working out the details of sex, the common thing was for reproductin to be attempted not just a few times in the life of a creature but to try hundreds and hundreds of times. If a lot of eggs are laid, each one having 50% of the genes from the current organism, then the whole genetic structure is actually out there; only not in a single egg, half here, half there, but it is out there, and more than just a single copy at that.

(b) Thinking of the genes of a single organism trying to multiply is one way to think of it, but there is an alternative. You can also think of the genes of a whole colony of organisms trying to multiply. In this case, if some of the genes come from organism a and others from organism b, the resulting organism is just as representative of the genes of the colony as if they all came only from organism a.

(c) Think about a species with a million individuals in it. By chance, beneficial mutation x comes along and gets established in some of them. Also, by chance beneficial mutation y comes along and gets estalished in others of them. With sex, the two mutations can come together into the same organism without any further mutations having to occur, thanks to the gene mixing that sex brings along. Without sex, the line that has mutation x must wait until, randomly, they also get the benefit of mutation y some indefinately long time later. Meanwhile, they must compete with the line that has mutation y idependently. Sex therefore gives the advantage of bringing seperately developed "good" genes together.

Oh, by the way, about computer modeling. It means nothing where evolution is concerned, as the computer programs require an intelligent programmer to set them up and are normally set up with a distinct goal in mind -- both items of which are denied by evolutionary paradigm.

This is silly, Helen, how can you possibly learn anything from a computer model unless you use your intelligence to set it up in a way that will probe a particular question? The hallmark of scientific experimentation is to control the variables. I'm sorry that you deplore the use of intelligence to research things - it leaves you blinded to many truths.

First of all, every bit of breeding experience and experiments indicate limits within biological kinds, especially where animals are concerned. Secondly, your claim of 'no mention of how it does this hindering' shows you obviously do not understand what I wrote and quoted later in my post regarding the 50% disadvantage. I suggest strongly that you take a course in population genetics, or at least read a book on the subject before you accuse me of not backing up my statement. The fact is that you did not understand what the quotes I used meant.

If there is such a limit, can you define the limit and state what biological mechanisms enforce the limit? If not, my statement stands.

Going through your response, please be aware that sexual reproduction does not discriminate between good and bad mutations.

Of course not. The honor of selecting between good and bad mutations is reserved for the trials of life that the living organism goes through in its efforts to reproduce the following generation that follows next. If it is stuck with "bad" mutations, that handicap will hold it back. If it is blessed with "good" mutations, that advantage will help it along. THIS is the means by which the generations that follow get left with the good mutations only. That is standard evolutionary theory. Thank you for the opportunity to help clarify what standard evolutionary theory really says about how genes are selected for.

Most get weeded out. The bad ones, however, seem to be accumulating in all species now. That is called genetic load. The list of damage done to humans which is attributed to bad mutations, many of which are heritable, seems to be growing. Keep your eye on science and health news. I don't think you will find I am wrong here. Bad mutations are NOT weeded out and when one considers the tremendous number of harmful mutations with the one or two oft-cited (by evolutionist apologists) beneficial mutations which seem to be present, I would say that your knowledge of sexual reproduction and mutations needs to mutate upwards!

We are currently undergoing revolultionary discoveries concerning the nature of the human genome and of course it means we will discover more and more what problems are caused by genetic abnormalities; this growing list, by itself, does not mean we are degenerating as a species, just that we are learning more.

Its like the reported number of child abuse cases today compared to those a centure ago. A century ago people thought very differently about child abuse and the statistics are not comparable.

As for the weeding out of bad mutations, take the mutation that causes Down Syndrom. You agree, don't you, that very few of those with that syndrom go on to have children of their own? That stops the spread of that gene in its tracks.

YOu said there is lots of evidence I am ignoring regarding the building of one beneficial mutation on another in a sexually reproducing organism which will produce a new form or function. Please enlighten me. I don't want what-if stories, though; I want actual known cases. Thank you.

There are many actual known cases. The development of the single horses' hoof from an earlier three toed animal is well documented. One of the signifigant evidences that this actually occurred is the remaining vestigal "fingers" on the horse leg, which are known as shin splints.

The development of the whale flukes for propelling whales through the water is another. Vestigal hind limbs in whales are occasionally found even today, although they are mostly genetically suppressed. These vestigal hind limbs are evidence that the evolutionary scenario happened, including the development of the flukes that don't fossilize.

Your what-if story about 'incremental changes' producing cells with half the requisite chromosomes has nothing to do with reality, I'm afraid. It is purely a product of your imagination without anything in the real world remotely tending to support your story. Please remember, we are NOT talking about bundling, but about halving the requisite number of chromosomes and somehow, presumably at the same time, developing the physical tools and functions which would permit the combining of these half-complements into a new cell with the full complement of genetic material.

There you go again. You say we can't possibly conceive of any way it could have happened, I give you some possible scenarios, you accuse me of merely using my imagination, after I supply exactly what you asked for.

The exact path taken by evolution to get to the full chromosone doubling will never be known, since the only possible evidence wouldn't fossilize. I suspect it would be possible to imagine several possible paths to get there step by step in incremental fashion as demanded by the theory of evolution. Do you think I can't construct such an imaginary path? You think I can? I take that as evidence you should realize such a path is POSSIBLE and therefore the objection that such a path is NOT POSSIBLE has no force.