Sexual reproduction as an argument against evolution

by Saintbertholdt 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hello there all,

  About a day ago StarTrekAngel mentioned that an idea was put forward by a JW that sexual reproduction was an argument against evolution. Here's StarTrekAngel's quote: "Is this some kind of talk being spread around in congregations? The funny thing is that a while ago someone tried to make the same argument, saying they could disprove evolution because no one can explain how we evolved male and female at the same time. Not much later than that, a friend of mine (a JW) told me the same thing. I thought either he read the same post or this is going around the congregations as a means to challenge evolution. I know my friend and I know he does not come around this website."

  Well I have now come across this as well. A close relative of mine who is a JW made the same argument in writing that gender had to emerge very rapidly, therefore pointing to the idea of divine creation rather than natural selection. My first thoughts on this was quite straight forward:

  Without even looking at the scientific evidence, one could reason that if evolution was true then the further back one went into living organism history up to single celled organisms, the more asexual reproduction would be the primary method of heredity in organisms, with a combination of sexual and asexual reproduction becoming more prevalent over time, and then the emergence of a proto-sexual reproduction method before the sexes are fully defined.

  So then I turned to the interwebs:

  I went looking for the oldest organisms to emerge in the animal kingdom which turns out to be Sponges in the phylum porifera (pore bearers). It seems that they can reproduce 4 ways: 3 ways asexually and also 1 way sexually without the use of gonads. So sexual reproduction could therefore have evolved slowly and become more defined while asexual reproduction was primarily being used.

  At about the same time the animal kingdom shows up in the fossil record, other Eukaryotes (organisms with defined cell membranes and a nucleus) also appear namely Ciliates (protozoans with hair like organelles). They don't have sexual reproduction per se (they also have various asexual methods) however they can exchange genetic material with each other through a process called conjugation. I would call this a proto-sexual process.

  Going back even further in living organism history one gets to a process called horizontal gene transfer (which is still happening today in bacteria) where even totally different species can exchange DNA material and the reproduction boundaries are utterly blurred. To me it seems as if these ancient one celled organisms were a bunch of hedonistic miscreants! Incidentally this process of horizontal gene transfer makes the identification of LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) seemingly highly improbable.

  So....

  Is my logic reasonable?

  Is there a simpler/better way to explain this?
  

  Are there any good books on this particular topic?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Sexual reproduction as an argument against evolution

  I find this creationist argument completely astonishing. I see sexual reproduction and human genitalia as an argument against intelligent design and thus in favour of evolution.

  I'm trying not to be crude, but just take the design, and look of human genitalia. That's the best big J could come up with?!

  One day, God was wondering how to design human genitals and SAID to Jesus and the angels: "ah, that's the look I'm going for, the last-turkey-in-the-shop look!"

  And that's just for Adam. Then, there's Eve ...
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  What exactly do you feel is wrong with human genitalia?
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I find this creationist argument completely astonishing. I see sexual reproduction and human genitalia as an argument against intelligent design and thus in favour of evolution.

  Three engineers were discussing the nature of god. The first says "When you examine the human skeletal structure, it's clear that god is a mechanical engineer." The second says "No! Our brains and nervous system is what makes us what we are. God is clearly an electrical engineer." The third says "You're both wrong! Only a civil engineer would run a waste disposal pipeline right through the middle of a recreation area."
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  What exactly do you feel is wrong with human genitalia? - I don't feel there is anything wrong with human genitalia per se.

  I was just pointing out that, as creationists believe that God designed them, and that the Bible calls God's creation very good, then it follows that creationists believe that this design was the best thing that God could come up with.
• 

  StarTrekAngel

  I think the female genitalia IS definitely the best thing. LOL

  The waste disposal pipeline is upstream from the recreational area if you consider that we did not evolve to use toilets. We are supposed to squat and it has already been shown that squatting is much better for your gut health than seating in a toilet.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I wish I hadn't posted those last two comments, now

  Anyway, to address the OP more seriously ...

  Saintbertholdt, your research is good. There is a pattern to be noted from bacteria, to unicellular eukaryotes, to multicellular eukaryotes over time.

  Scientists have proposed a theory re the evolution of anisogamy (different sized gametes, like sperm and egg). I revised this for one of my last subjects at uni but unfortunately have forgotten most of it now. However, I'll try to remember:

  A tendency toward larger and larger gametes would be selected because these can provide greater nourishment for the future zygote. Once this became established, natural election wouldn't selection for all gametes to evolve larger size, but would favour some gametes to evolve ever smaller sizes at greater numbers, because these can fertilize gametes better.

  Sorry for the clumsy attempt at an explanation. I don't know whether this theory has been debunked r refined, but it's worth looking up if you're interested.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  it has already been shown that squatting is much better for your gut health than seating in a toilet

  It's the state of the carpet that I'm worried about ...
• 

  cofty

  To understand why it is an argument from ignorance you have to consider the fundamental difference between male and female.

  It has nothing to do with plumbing.

  The biological difference is the size of gamete.

  Every living cell requires mitochondria which have their own DNA involved in the process of respiration. The DNA in the mitochondria must work in sync with the DNA in the nucleus. For this reason it works best if it is contributed by just one parent and not involved in meiosis like nuclear DNA.

  Which brings us to sex.

  Two strategies evolved. One involved contributing just genetic material in huge numbers and the other is to also contribute mitochondria.

  Thus male and female.

  The genitalia to facilitate internal fertilisation evolved gradually over many generations.
• 

  prologos

  would favour some gametes to evolve ever smaller sizes at greater numbers, because these can fertilize gametes better. LUHE

  Is there not a news items about rats bigger game-tes than elephants ? and Evolution is favored by sexual reproduction, more mix mutation possible 2 possible areas, long term ova and short term sperm, more mix to fill more niches, fun too, and better then cloning, the ultimate incest.

  Why mice have longer sperm than elephants -- ScienceDaily

  common in small rodents, such as mice and rats, than in larger ...

  www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118071404.htm