Re: the role of sex in evolution

From: Susan Brassfield (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 07 2000 - 12:49:32 EDT

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: the role of sex in evolution"

    >Reflectorites
    >
    >On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:33:57 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >>BP>Sex is a bit of a problem for evolution. No one has been able to figure
    >>>out how a man and a woman could have evolved through functional
    >>>intermediates to develop a sperm/egg, and the male/female sex organs.
    >>>This is the classic example of Michael Behe's irreducible complexity.
    >
    >SB>this is, of course, hogwash. Sex is not a problem at all for evolution.
    >>First, go to this note at the talk.origins website:
    >>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may99.html
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >The wording above is illuminating: "this is, *of course*, hogwash" and
    >"Sex is not a problem *at all*..." (my emphasis). This is the `Freudian slip'
    >of a true believer to whom there can be no "problem at all for evolution",
    >even in principle, and therefore no scientific evidence is even necessary.
    >All
    >one has to do is point to a `verse' in the evolutionist's `Bible', the
    >Talk.Origins website, and all will be well!

    creationists of all kinds *hate* the talk.origins website :-) There *is*
    some childish stuff there, but the bulk of it is well referenced back to
    the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This: "`verse' in the
    evolutionist's `Bible', the Talk.Origins website" is ad hominem of the
    first water. If you want to know the difference between talkorigins.org
    and a creationist website go to the "links" page. There you will find links
    to all kinds of sites *including* most of the creationist sites. It is
    vanishingly rare for a creationist website (or publication or whatever) to
    provide easy access to the opposing viewpoint with a tacit invitation to
    the reader to make up her own mind.

    >But someone better tell Maynard Smith, one of the world's leading
    >authorities on the origin of sex. In his book, "The Problems of Biology", he
    >included the origin of sexual reproduction among biology's "major
    >unsolved problems" (Maynard Smith J., "The Problems of Biology," 1986,
    >p.vii). He explains the basic problem is that:
    >
    >"...it is reproduction, not sex, which is a precondition for evolution"

    I have a feeling Maynard Smith does not mean "problem" in the same gleeful
    way *you* mean "problem. I have no confidence in your quotes since the time
    you openly admitted editing them to make them seem to be saying something
    the author didn't intend.

    Sex is not a problem for evolution. If you can share genes with another
    organism you have an advantage over an organism that must wait around for a
    mutation. (that's pointed out in some of the material I gave links for).
    I'm pretty sure single-celled organisms have been observed to share genes
    from time to time and therefore your dismissal of the origin of sex as a
    "just so" story is wishful thinking.

    Susan

    ----------

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
    of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
    this one.
    --Albert Camus

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 07 2000 - 12:51:14 EDT