"No sex" law in Darwinism

ratiocinator · Aug 3, 2021

leroy said:
Your burden is to show that natural selection is good enough to prevent such deterioration.

It's not actually a difficult concept. If a variation is harmful it will tend to die out. If a variation is beneficial it will spread through a population because it is better suited to survival and reproduction.

How long have you been debating this? How have you not grasped how simple this is?

leroy · Aug 3, 2021

ratiocinator said:
It's not actually a difficult concept. If a variation is harmful it will tend to die out. If a variation is beneficial it will spread through a population because it is better suited to survival and reproduction.

How long have you been debating this? How have you not grasped how simple this is?

The point of the OP is that *if* humans could have not evolved from a single couple (Adam and Eve) because of all these genetic problems, why didn’t the first living things had the same problem

*If* natrual selection is as effective as you seem to suggest, then why couldn’t NS solve all the genetic problems that would have been caused if we evolve from a single couple?

Valjean · Aug 3, 2021

leroy said:
Your burden is to show that natural selection is good enough to prevent such deterioration.

What deterioration? Show me any evidence of this deterioration.

leroy · Aug 3, 2021

Valjean said:
What deterioration? Show me any evidence of this deterioration.

Evidence for deteriorating mutations? Really do I have to provide evidence for the fact that at least mutations deteriorate the genome?

Valjean · Aug 3, 2021

leroy said:
Your burden is to show that natural selection is good enough to prevent such deterioration.

What deterioration? Link?

The fact that we're here, along with a million other species, after X million generations, seriously undermines this deterioration theory.

leroy said:
That is false, most delaterius mutations are not bad enough to be selected away. … this is analgous to a spelling mistake, in most cases the mistake is not bad enough to ruin the recepie, but if you keep adding mistakes there would be a point where the recipe will fail.

But why would these mistakes be added? Deleterious mistakes would be deleted, and your 'not bad enough' mistakes would remain neutral. If they became deleterious, they'd be selected out.

But the point of the OP is that if humans could have not descended from 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) due to all these genetic deterioration, then why didn’t the first living things had the same problem?

They did, and the first "living" things were probably pretty fragile. But if you ran the experiment a billion times, a few would survive and replicate long enough for natural selection to begin making improvements.

If natural selection is as powerful as you seem to believe then any genetic mistakes would be corrected , so why couldn’t we evolve from 2 single individuals.

We could. The hamsters in your kids' terrarium did, but the chances of deleterious recessive traits being passed on would be very high, and the chances of enough genetic diversity existing to weather the vicissitudes of environmental change would be low.

Valjean · Aug 3, 2021

leroy said:
Evidence for deteriorating mutations? Really do I have to provide evidence for the fact that at least mutations deteriorate the genome?

If you think that they would result in extinction, then yes.
Why is natural selection so hard to comprehend?

Father Heathen · Aug 3, 2021

If one were on a quest for truth, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and scientific illiteracy would the poorest choice of paths.

leroy · Aug 3, 2021

Valjean said:
would be very high, and the chances of enough genetic diversity existing to weather the vicissitudes of environmental change would be low.

You have to pick one

1 ether a population of 1 or 2 individuals is unviable due to genetic noise (refuting both “adam and eve” and abiogenesis (any hypothesis that’s starts with one living thing)

2 or its possible (just unlikely) for 1 or 2 individuals to flourish and have billions of descendants. Because of natrual selection, and all that stuff.

That is the point of the OP (or atleast that is what I understood)

leroy · Aug 3, 2021

Valjean said:
If you think that they would result in extinction, then yes.
Why is natural selection so hard to comprehend?

I don’t think such a thing (well yes but that is not the point)…………….th point of the OP is that some “anticreationists” claim that we could have not evolved from 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) due to that genetic noise and deterioration……………..so if this where a problem, then all abiogenesis hypothesis that star with 1 (or few) organisms should have the same problem.

Evangelicalhumanist · Aug 3, 2021

questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?

Please stop trying to pretend you understand a single word of science. You really don't, which can be discerned from your own words.

shunyadragon · Aug 3, 2021

Jaiket said:
The gradient from non-life to life is really blurry. There isn't a dividing line that makes demarcation an easy activity. The oceans could have been awash with chemical systems that had some of the properties we associate with life for millions of years before we had things that we would say are definitively "alive". In other words even God couldn't pick out the first living critter.

Huh?!?!? Rambling post of vague 'arguing from ignorance.' Did not respond to my post. I just gave the facts as they are presently known in science. Abiogenesis takes place in pre-life organic populations, and evolution takes place in populations and not as individuals.

There is a demarcation between non-life and life and that is the ability to reproduce as organism. Science at present does understand a great deal of the organic chemistry steps from pre-life, but, of course, we do not yet have all the answers.

Your vague 'arguing from ignorance' does not address the point of your thread, which reflects a lack of basic knowledge in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution with a religious agenda.

shunyadragon · Aug 3, 2021

leroy said:
I don’t think such a thing (well yes but that is not the point)…………….th point of the OP is that some “anticreationists” claim that we could have not evolved from 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) due to that genetic noise and deterioration……………..so if this where a problem, then all abiogenesis hypothesis that star with 1 (or few) organisms should have the same problem.

As noted based on the present knowledge of science abiogenesis takes place in large populations in a pre-life organic chemical environment as does evolution takes place in populations and not a few individuals. In abiogenesis it is the arising the first population of primitive life.

Dan From Smithville · Aug 3, 2021

questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?

Aren't you some sort of scientist? Don't you have access to better information than you use here? Your dates for these Y-c-A and Mt-Eve are more than a bit off to start. And neither of these are considered to be the first man or woman. Just the last ones surviving with a living lineage.

You know, everybody needs a hand to hold onto. You should look into that. Maybe the person on that hand can walk you to a library.

ratiocinator · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
That is false, most delaterius mutations are not bad enough to be selected away. … this is analgous to a spelling mistake, in most cases the mistake is not bad enough to ruin the recepie, but if you keep adding mistakes there would be a point where the recipe will fail.

A deleterious mutation is, by definition, one that reduces the chance of survival and reproduction and so will obviously be selected against. Most mutations are entirely neutral and are neither deleterious nor beneficial. Every human has about 60 mutations.

leroy said:
But the point of the OP is that if humans could have not descended from 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) due to all these genetic deterioration, then why didn’t the first living things had the same problem?

The problems with small populations are things like recessive genetic disorders that will increase with inbreeding (see: Could just two people repopulate Earth?).

The very first things that started replicating (and hence being subject to natural selection) were unlikely to even have had genes (RNA world, for example), let alone sexual reproduction, and I don't see why there would be only one of them. There would also have been no competition.

shunyadragon · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
Evidence for deteriorating mutations? Really do I have to provide evidence for the fact that at least mutations deteriorate the genome?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
Your burden is to show that natural selection is good enough to prevent such deterioration.

What a strange question.

Deterioration will remove itself from the genepool rather quickly.

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
Ok so what is so problematic with the claim that we all descended from 2 individuals? You keep the good descendent and remove the bad ones…………and avoid all the genetic problems by doing so.

The main genetic problem is the extreme lack of genetic variation.
It's not a problem that is solvable as the solution is "add more unrelated individuals" to increase variation.

Mere reproduction is only going to result in more clones (so to speak).

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
The point of the OP is that *if* humans could have not evolved from a single couple (Adam and Eve) because of all these genetic problems, why didn’t the first living things had the same problem

For starters, the genetic problems are the result of the need for inbreeding. Inbreeding is a problem is complex species that reproduce sexually.

The first living organisms would have lack that extreme complexity and would have reproduced asexually.
These are vastly different ways of being alive.

*If* natrual selection is as effective as you seem to suggest, then why couldn’t NS solve all the genetic problems that would have been caused if we evolve from a single couple?

Because NS can't just increase variation as that requires adding more (unrelated) individuals.

TagliatelliMonster · Aug 4, 2021

leroy said:
You have to pick one

1 ether a population of 1 or 2 individuals is unviable due to genetic noise (refuting both “adam and eve” and abiogenesis (any hypothesis that’s starts with one living thing)

2 or its possible (just unlikely) for 1 or 2 individuals to flourish and have billions of descendants. Because of natrual selection, and all that stuff.

That is the point of the OP (or atleast that is what I understood)

I pick unmentioned option 3, were no false equivocations and false dichotomies are included.

Yerda · Aug 4, 2021

shunyadragon said:
Huh?!?!? Rambling post of vague 'arguing from ignorance.' Did not respond to my post. I just gave the facts as they are presently known in science. Abiogenesis takes place in pre-life organic populations, and evolution takes place in populations and not as individuals.

There is a demarcation between non-life and life and that is the ability to reproduce as organism. Science at present does understand a great deal of the organic chemistry steps from pre-life, but, of course, we do not yet have all the answers.

Your vague 'arguing from ignorance' does not address the point of your thread, which reflects a lack of basic knowledge in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution with a religious agenda.

It was a response to post #4.

"No sex" law in Darwinism

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member