Evolution and Sex - The elephant in the room

While I do believe in evolution, there are still many questions many of us have. These two are exceptionally troubling:

1. The first one - is one that has been presented many times before: How did life begin?

How did the inanimate become animated or "alive"? Yes, the short answer is "basic chemistry" or a one in a trillion chance of something happening. General answers like this one give a general idea. But the bottom line is that something that is "dead" (a chemical compound) came to life, started "reproducing", and boom a couple of million years later there are humans able to walk and chew and the same time. All from "replicator molecules" and chemistry?

But let's not spend too much time on this one - the question remains pretty much a mystery to science.

2. Sex: How did Sex - a very ineffective and messy way of reproduction - evolve?

If you forgive me for using a bit of imagination to recreate the scene:

So, here we have a couple of single cell organisms playing and frolicking on a pretty desolate planet. Not much to do other than to sleep, "feed" and divide yourself in two. Like so.

And they all were pretty much bored out of their tiny minds. Then they said to each other "This is really boring. Let's evolve so we can have some fun... I know - our existence is focused on reproduction and saving the 'species'. Let's make that more fun! Let's evolve sex organs! Yay!" And they evolved sex organs and it's been one of the top sellers of reproduction ever since.

Yes? No.

As we know evolution is more a result of accidental mutations/variations. Let's assume that sex did not start at a single cell level... This still means that ONE organism ended up with a mutation resembling a vagina and another one with something that resembled a penis. And let's say that happened... these two mutations still had to have happened in relative close proximity of each other in order for them to "meet up", but they would also have had to realise that part A fits into part B and that by doing this one organism would fall pregnant and produce off-spring...

That's a lot of "what if's"!

Obviously scientists have wagered guesses but none came even close to an acceptable answer.

Evolution of sex

The origin of sex remains a mystery for those committed to a purely materialistic view of reality -- not to mention the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself an engineering marvel). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Naturalists would have us believe that undirected occurrences brought about this marvellously interdependent process of (1) halving the genetic information; (2) recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is such a sophisticated mechanism required for the production of a sperm or egg cell via meiosis, but another equally intricate process also joins the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote (which will later become the embryo). To believe that purely materialistic processes, governed by the laws of chance, could have produced such a mechanism stretches credulity beyond reasonable limits.

Sex

Dr. Thomas’ money is perfectly safe. No one has been able to explain—from an evolutionary viewpoint—the origin of sex, the origin of the incredibly complex meiotic process that makes sex possible, or the intricate development of the embryo (which is itself a marvel of design). At conception, the chromosomes inherited from the sperm are paired with the chromosomes inherited from the egg to give the new organism its full chromosomal complement. Evolutionary theorists ask us to believe that random, chance occurrences brought about this marvelously interdependent process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through sexual reproduction. Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place via meiosis, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to rejoin the genetic information during fertilization in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn. The idea that all of this “just evolved” is unworthy of consideration or acceptance, especially in light of the evidence now at hand.

Additional Reading

And beyond that, sex is not a very "cost effective" way of reproducing, especially when compared to simply dividing yourself into two "equal halves".

To make matters worse, sexual reproduction often entails costs beyond the recombination load described earlier. To reproduce sexually, an individual must take the time and energy to switch from mitosis to meiosis (this step is especially relevant in single-celled organisms); it must find a willing mate; and it must risk contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, an individual that reproduces sexually passes only half of its genes to its offspring, whereas it would have transmitted 100% of its genes to progeny that were produced asexually. (This last cost is often called the "twofold cost of sex.") Thus, unless the individual's sexual partner contributes enough resources to double the number of offspring, an organism that reproduces sexually passes on fewer copies of its genes than an organism that reproduces asexually.

Source

I know I have "over simplified" the issue, if only to provoke thought.

The bottom line - science cannot answer question 2. I would however like hear what "out of the box" ATSers think scientifically...

This is part of the whole reason that I believe a universal consciousness is involved in the rise of life on this planet.
It has very little to do with survival of the species and a lot more to do with the survival of life in general AND the rise of mind in matter.
The supposed random evolution of insects is a far stretch for me. Some species have a lifespan of only 24 hours. For them to exist according to evolution, a male & female would have to have had the SAME mutations within a time frame and a location to enable them to breed. Of course I'm going to be ripped to shreds over this statement.

reply to post by Gaspode


Life is a chain reaction.

In single celled life forms sex is not an issue.
Perhaps as multicellular life forms developed, more complicated methods of reproduction ensued.
Let’s not forget the immense time that has passed and the myriad of forms that life has assumed, particularly at the microscopic level.
Small variations take hold and grow, sometimes into something completely different.
We can see the advantages that sex brings to any species. It is self evidently successful.
Much more so than any form of self cloning could possibly be.

Some animals are hermaphrodites perhaps that was the first step.

Id like to posit the theory of will enforced evolution here: its the simple premise that through thought and action concious mind puts in to effect biological re-programming that leads to changes in species.

To me the idea that a species could become air bound simply from falling off cliffs, surviving cos of bigger floppier arms, breeding and passing on traits, does seem a little fantastical on the whole. I feel some sort of concious yearning to be up there may have been involved in this dramatic evolutionary step.

Considering how long the idea of mind over matter has been around perhaps this premise should not be taken lightly, in light of the fact that we dont know how evolution could truely happen without 'something else' going on...
www.shaktigawain.com... for creative visualisation

If this were true wouldnt reproducing more often; (such as insects having to reproduce in their 24 life time frame) make evolution speed up and vary the species group inevitably more. After all, the life of insects is an incredibly competitive market place; where you live hard die fast, in these condition a concious or semi concious will to succeed where others don't would surely be all the more powerfull?

First off, while sexual reproduction may be less efficient than sexual reproduction it does serve a major purpose. As you pointed out asexual reproduction only passes on one organism's DNA, whereas sexual reproduction passes on the DNA of two organisms. This allows for greater genetic variation which is conducive to the whole evolutionary process. Another major flaw is that you jumped from the asexual reproduction of single-celled organisms all the way to mammalian sexual reproduction. You left out that, up until recently, egg laying was the only form of sexual reproduction. While I'm not sure what came before egg laying, if you look into the literature I'm sure you'll find an answer that explains how we went from cell division, to egg laying, to the sex we have today.

reply to post by Gaspode


There isn't a point behind evolution, it's just random mutations, the ones that work out stay around and the ones that don't work out don't, sex just happened to be a good way of mixing up DNA thus making a species less likely to be wiped out by a single illness / virus.

A species that has lots of mixed up DNA is more likely to survive then one that doesn't. You just have to look at the relative strength of "mongrel" dogs over their pure bread counterparts (with their inbred genetic illnesses and short life span) to see that

As for the messiness bit, lots of functions of bodies are pretty messy, it doesn't mean they aren't effective

reply to post by Gaspode


I know this is going to sound off the wall and it is.

The first humans could not replicate. They were clones without sex organs.
Eunuchs.

Then who ever was making humans (to do the mining in the pits for gold and precious gems) they got too lazy to clone the humans and against the COSMIC rules and regulations, then made us so we could re-create ourselves.

Whoever it was that was in charge of THEM...those responsible for the modification, did not live or visit EARTH very often to check on progress but when He/She/It did ...He/She/It was quite pissed off.

Humans were not supposed to replicate themselves.
This opened up a whole a can of worms.
They were going to just leave and bury the (animal like) workers underground with no bad conscious but when we were able to reproduce we became cute and likeable...like kittens.

Enoch I think it was..... managed to endear himself and so ourselves to
"the boss of them."

And here we are.

After a time..."the boss of them" accepted us reluctantly but fully into the cosmic society.

In later stories it is said He/She/It "breathed life into us" but I think this is just a spin on the truth in order to give credit/blame for our creation to "The Lord"

1) Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started. Those theories are in the field of abiogenesis.
2) "Sex" is nothing but gene material mixing...which is a key component for "higher" species and evolution in general. It's a logical way to disperse gene material.

S&F Excellent thread. There are thousands of elephants in the room when it comes to macro evolution in my opinion.

Take the eye for example. It didn't just appear one day. An organism has to:

-develop light sensitive cells
-develop optic nerves linking them to the brain
-develop a mechanism in the brain to process the signals
-recess an area in the head for the eye to sit in
-develop a cornea
-develop an iris

And that is EXTREMELY over simplified. None of that even becomes beneficial until step three, so the first half of the development of the eye has to happen "accidentally" and in sequence without natural selection to help it.

Keep in mind also that most random mutations are detrimental. Entropy will tell you that things tend to become disordered rather than ordered unless there is some intelligent force driving it.

The chances of all of that happening even in 100 billion years is effectively zero.

And that is just one more example. there are tons of systems in the body that you could do this sequence with.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
if you look into the literature I'm sure you'll find an answer that explains how we went from cell division, to egg laying, to the sex we have today.

Here's the problem, I think too many people have the idea that "the scientists have it all figured out. I'm sure if I look it up it's explained."

The big secret in evolution is that no one really has any of it figured out. There are only a few desperate theories with a lot of holes.

reply to post by BobbinHood


Actually, we have observed what you call macro evolution (speciation) several times already...it's not a "hunch", it's fact

As for the eye: LINK

Scientists can explain how eyes evolved...and we can witness every step of that evolution in today's living species. Just because you think something is complex, or can't explain it yourself, doesn't mean it's suddenly "magic" or not possible to explain.

This forum is full of criticism of evolution, but I have yet to see one that isn't based on anything but a lack of knowledge.

We have just as much proof for the theory of evolution as we have for gravity or thermodynamics. Saying we don't have any of it really "figured out" is laughable given that we use findings from the theory actively in modern science, medicine (you wouldn't have half the meds if evolutionary theory was wrong), and gene technology.

Now, you didn't say you favor a creationist theory...but just to give you a perspective. If someone demanded to change "evolution" to "intelligent design", we'd also have to change "gravity" to "intelligent falling", because we have the same amount of backup for both theories.

reply to post by Gaspode

How did life begin?

Maybe we're all just electric impulses and chemistry..

We're all realy "dead"

reply to post by MrXYZ


Hm, I read the link. The only problem is with light sensitive cells developing with a meaningful connection to the brain, along with the ability for the brain to interpret it all in one mutation. It just seems like a feat too great for a random mutation. But hey, we can agree to disagree I guess

reply to post by BobbinHood


It doesn't necessarily have to happen in one mutation. Every living being has parts that seem to make no sense (yet). Those parts are things that are either remnants of stuff we slowly lost during evolution, or stuff that's newly developing without making "sense" yet.

What I'm baffled about is that we have people on here claiming we come from clones someone sent...when we have soooo much evidence that prove that's not what happened. But a ton of people don't even bother to look up the facts, they prefer being spoon fed by pseudo-scientists like Ben Stein who use their incredible lack of scientific knowledge to attack evolution.

All it shows is that the education system is failing. I mean, we have people who seriously argue creationism should be taught as an alternative "theory" to evolution. IN THE 21st CENTURY!!

You guys are using the "god of the gaps" argument. Sexual evolution isn't completely understood at the moment, but that doesn't mean it took a supernatural being to do it.

reply to post by Gaspode


I'm going to call bogus on the sources. Clearly a creationist source with a lack of understanding of science and a vendetta against materialistic naturalism, the 'worldview' which gave us all the technology that lead up to the ability to discuss such topics electronically.

For the origin of life, see abiogenesis, a relatively new field of study.

For the origin of sexual reproduction, see 'penis fencing'...I didn't come up with the term, I merely find it amusing. Seriously, it even has a wikipedia entry.

Now, would it have been all that hard to go to the wikipedia entry on the evolution of sexual reproduction? It's one of those good entries that has nearly 30 references

Of course, I'm not going to force you to read any of it, so I'll also embed a video that explains it well.


Now, I will participate in this argument more fully depending on responses. Why? Just getting off of a very frustrating thread on similar subjects, so I'm wary.

reply to post by BobbinHood

Originally posted by BobbinHood
S&F Excellent thread. There are thousands of elephants in the room when it comes to macro evolution in my opinion.

Take the eye for example. It didn't just appear one day. An organism has to:

-develop light sensitive cells
-develop optic nerves linking them to the brain
-develop a mechanism in the brain to process the signals
-recess an area in the head for the eye to sit in
-develop a cornea
-develop an iris

You don't seem to understand how the evolution of the eye works. Let me help out here.
For one thing, an iris isn't required for the eye to function. There are many species of animals that lack this in their optic system.

There are also animals that lack corneas, relying on simple photosensitive cells that don't distinguish much more than light intensity.

Here's a very well made demonstration from Richard Dawkins back when his hair still had some color in it.

Google Video Link

It's 14 minutes long. If you want something a bit easier, you can take a look at the wikipedia entry on the subject or this much shorter video from PBS that clocks in at around 4 minutes

And that is EXTREMELY over simplified. None of that even becomes beneficial until step three, so the first half of the development of the eye has to happen "accidentally" and in sequence without natural selection to help it.

Photosensitive cells require a very simple signal to be received, an 'on/off' binary switch. They're immediately useful.

Please, look at the resources.

Keep in mind also that most random mutations are detrimental.

Creationist fallacy number 2. The majority of mutations are neutral. You, myself, and every other person on this forum have 100+ 'random mutations'. It is well documented and is a contributing factor to familial genetic diversity.

Here's a video that explains the fallacy that you've been led to believe is true.


It's 10 minutes long, but it's an incredibly concise and detailed explanation from someone who has vast scientific experience and takes you along every step of the explanation.

Entropy will tell you that things tend to become disordered rather than ordered unless there is some intelligent force driving it.

No, it tells you that things tend to disorder in a closed system. We have a constant external infusion of energy from the sun. Hence entropy doesn't come into play. The sun pumps in energy every day, allowing for order to develop.

The chances of all of that happening even in 100 billion years is effectively zero.

Probability. That's a favorite subject of mine in this discussion.

From the thread I authored and just linked, I'd like to demonstrate that you are mistaken.

Get a standard deck of playing cards. Shuffle them.
Now deal yourself 5 cards.

The probability of the hand you just dealt yourself is 1/ (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48)%
OR
1 in 311,875,200

That's just the chance of getting a hand of any 5 cards, but it doesn't preclude it from happening.
Shuffle the cards back into the deck.
Now deal yourself another hand, it's also a 1 in 311,875,200 chance.
But now that you've dealt yourself TWO hands the chances that you would get them both in that sequence is 1 in 97,266,140,375,040,000
And so on for each and every other hand you're playing.
It gets exponentially worse when you're playing with multiple people.

The chance that a game of poker will turn out in any way is effectively zero, it still happens.

Then you need to reconcile the vastness of the universe with the probabilities anyway. Let's just take time from the formation of the Earth, approx. 4 billion years. 4 billion years ago the universe was approx 10 billion light years across. So you have 4 billion years of billions of planets attempting to form life for billions of years? Pretty good odds.

If I had 4 billion monkeys at 4 billion typewriters for 4 billion years I'd expect them to crank out at least one great literary work.

And that is just one more example. there are tons of systems in the body that you could do this sequence with.

You are citing the concept of 'irreducible complexity' which was popularized by Michael Behe. It's been discussed ad nauseum on ATS and not a single example of an 'irreducibly complex' system has been found. Every single system in the body had ample time and has ample examples of preceding systems to develop.

What's even crazier is that our eye is an example of a step towards a greater version of the system, as the human eye is far from the best eye in the animal kingdom. There are many marine animals that have a better sense of vision than ours. There are also many examples of animals that have preceding steps in the development of our eyes.

reply to post by BobbinHood

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Here's the problem, I think too many people have the idea that "the scientists have it all figured out. I'm sure if I look it up it's explained."

The big secret in evolution is that no one really has any of it figured out. There are only a few desperate theories with a lot of holes.

You mean except for the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published on every single aspect of evolution, phylogeny, and other related fields, right?

Also, how is 'theory' a bad thing? How many times do I have to say that a theory is the highest level of certainty that a scientific idea can achieve?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You make some very good points. There's only one I'll disagree with though.

The chance that a game of poker will turn out in any way is effectively zero, it still happens. Then you need to reconcile the vastness of the universe with the probabilities anyway. Let's just take time from the formation of the Earth, approx. 4 billion years. 4 billion years ago the universe was approx 10 billion light years across. So you have 4 billion years of billions of planets attempting to form life for billions of years? Pretty good odds.

That is technically correct, but it isn't the most efficient explanation. If an archaeologist finds some stones stacked into a small pyramid, the explanation is not "Well after billions of years, chances are that some stones, somewhere will just happen to get stacked up in this formation, and this just happens to be the place and time it happened." The explanation is that someone put them there.

Occam's razor would recommend that we chose the simplest explanation. Evolution is only the simplest explanation because scientists refuse to acknowledge the possibility that there is some kind of purpose behind evolution, or that some kind of intelligence plays a role, and I don't blame them... That would be irresponsible for science, but when it comes to personal belief, I just don't buy it.

Originally posted by BobbinHood
That is technically correct, but it isn't the most efficient explanation. If an archaeologist finds some stones stacked into a small pyramid, the explanation is not "Well after billions of years, chances are that some stones, somewhere will just happen to get stacked up in this formation, and this just happens to be the place and time it happened." The explanation is that someone put them there.

Yes, but that is because there aren't natural instances of individual stones arranging themselves into pyramidal shapes.

There is a plethora of evidence supporting the evolution of every single biological system.

You're making a very false comparison.

Occam's razor would recommend that we chose the simplest explanation.

And evolution is that explanation. Creationism doesn't explain anything, it merely fits things into a non-explanatory framework in which science has no meaning.

Evolution is only the simplest explanation because scientists refuse to acknowledge the possibility that there is some kind of purpose behind evolution, or that some kind of intelligence plays a role, and I don't blame them...

They don't refuse to acknowledge the possibility, science simply doesn't care about possibilities on their own. It cares about that which can be demonstrated by evidence.

It's possible that the entire universe was created last Thursday and that all evidence to the contrary way put into place (memories, the physical universe, etc) by an omnipotent trickster who wishes to deceive us...but there's no evidence to support it.

You can't even refute that argument because it's air-tight to any refutation. But it has no way of proving itself. Thus there's also an equal possibility of the exact same argument with any other day of the week substituted.

Science only cares about a possibility when there's a way to provide evidence for that possibility. It was a possibility that DNA had a triple helix structure (which was supported by two time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling), but it was wrong because we had evidence of a double helix structure.

That would be irresponsible for science, but when it comes to personal belief, I just don't buy it.

That's the wonderful thing about science, it's entirely opposed to the idea of personal belief.

Personal beliefs, like common sense, don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world we live in.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

That's the wonderful thing about science, it's entirely opposed to the idea of personal belief.

And rightly so.

Science is always limited to the body of knowledge at the time. Before Newton, science would be a poor guide to the nature of our solar system. And today, science is a poor guide to the nature of reality itself.

So while it can explain the mechanism by which evolution occurred, the two of us can only speculate as to the meaning and purpose (or lack thereof) behind it.

So I don't believe either of us will prove our ideas by debating it right now, but one day science will figure it out. In the mean time though, it makes for some interesting discussion.