"No sex" law in Darwinism

[leroy]

What a strange question.

Deterioration will remove itself from the genepool rather quickly.

Ok so given that claim, why wouldn’t natural selection solve all the genetic problems that make impossible that we descend from 2 humans (as the op claims)

 

[leroy]

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

Ok so why didn’t the first “complex organism that reproduce sexually” had the same problem?

 

[leroy]

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

Avoiding a direct answer, how typical of you.

 

[Valjean]

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

After so many millions of generations, why hasn't all life deteriorated and gone extinct?

Ok so given that claim, why wouldn’t natural selection solve all the genetic problems that make impossible that we descend from 2 humans (as the op claims)

Your question indicates you don't understand how natural selection works.

Ok so why didn’t the first “complex organism that reproduce sexually” had the same problem?

There probably was no single 'first'. Exclusively sexual reproduction likely developed gradually, and inbreeding might very well have been problematic.

You take a lot of swipes at the ToE, yet we see diversity all round us, and we haven't deteriorated into piles of goo.
If the mechanisms of evolution didn't work, where'd the diversity come from, and why are we still here? What's your alternative explanation?

 

[leroy]

After so many millions of generations, why hasn't all life deteriorated and gone extinct?

I don’t know that is a question that YEC ask and that old earthers haven’t answered in a satisfactory way.

there are many papers (for example Why we are not dead one hundred times over - PubMed) that deal with this problem and no author claims to have a definitive answer.


Obviously thihs doesn’t mean that therefore the earth is young, but it means that there is a problem that has to be solved. Which is fine scientists are looking for a solution to this problem only fanatic evolutionists from YouTube and forums pretend that evolution (Darwinism) is a perfect theory that has no holes nor unsolved problems

Your question indicates you don't understand how natural selection works.

note how you are avoiding the question

There probably was no single 'first'. Exclusively sexual reproduction likely developed gradually, and inbreeding might very well have been problematic

.

Necesarirly there had to be a “first” organism capable of reproducing sexually and supposedly (according to the theory of evolution) we all descend from that organism.

If the mechanisms of evolution didn't work, where'd the diversity come from, and why are we still here? What's your alternative explanation?

I don’t know and nobody knows,,,,, all the mechanism that have been proposed in the literature have both advantages and problems……….. scientist are still working on this problem.

My personal guess…….. diversity comes mainly from “non random mutations”

 

[shunyadragon]

I am talking about the very first life on Earth. If it is not LUCA, then use another word.

There was never just one or two very first life on earth. As in evolution there never was just one two or a few first of any species.

For example: In the evolution of humans we find a number of a number of subspecies like Neanderthals, Denisovans and other subspecies of pre-humans that migrated out of Africa that mixed to evolve into homo sapiens modern humans as populations.

 

[Valjean]

My personal guess…….. diversity comes mainly from “non random mutations”

What is a non-random mutation? How would one be produced?

 

[leroy]

What is a non-random mutation? How would one be produced?

There are many known mechanisms that cause nonrandom mechanisms, (epigenetics, natural genetic engineering, etc)

How this mechanisms work? Nobody knows, we humans are too primitive to understand DNA at that level. Perhaps withign the next 50 years a smart scientists (or team) would find an answer.

My personal guess, these mechanisms are complex and specified. (and therefore they could have not evolved by traditional Darwinian mechanisms)

....
But that is off topic, the point of the OP is that if humans could have not descent from a single couple due to all this genetic problems of having such a small population (as anti creationists ….. Then evolution could have not happed ether because at some point (or points) we evolved from a small population (a population of 1 individual if we grant current hypothesis of abiogenesis)

If “something” solved the problem of small populations in primitive organisms, then why couldn’t “something” solve the problem of small population in humans?...

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so why didn’t the first “complex organism that reproduce sexually” had the same problem?

The first simple complex organism were single celled micro-organisms like those today that do no treproduce sexuslly.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are many known mechanisms that cause nonrandom mechanisms, (epigenetics, natural genetic engineering, etc)

We have been over this many times before what you call non-random mutations and random mutations simply contribute to the genetic diversity of the DNA of the genome population. The mutations in and of themselves have no role in the process of natural selection.

'Natural genetic engineering' does not determine the outcome of natural selection the environment does,

How this mechanisms work? Nobody knows, we humans are too primitive to understand DNA at that level. Perhaps withign the next 50 years a smart scientists (or team) would find an answer.

Scientists do understand the mechanisms of evolution and in extreme detail the nature and mechanisms of DNA

My personal guess, these mechanisms are complex and specified. (and therefore they could have not evolved by traditional Darwinian mechanisms)

Personal guesses do not count in science. There is no such thing as 'Traditional Darwinian mechanisms?' The mechanisms of evolution are natural selection through the pressures of environmental change. The mutations simply represent the DNA diversity needed for evolution to take place.

But that is off topic, the point of the OP is that if humans could have not descent from a single couple due to all this genetic problems of having such a small population (as anti creationists ….. Then evolution could have not happed ether because at some point (or points) we evolved from a small population (a population of 1 individual if we grant current hypothesis of abiogenesis)

If “something” solved the problem of small populations in primitive organisms, then why couldn’t “something” solve the problem of small population in humans?...

The populations in primitive organisms were not small.

To add: There was no "sex" among the populations of the first primitive single celled micro-organisms.
'

 

[leroy]

The first simple complex organism were single celled micro-organisms like those today that do no treproduce sexuslly.

Sorry is too frustrating and tedious to talk to you .please before answering follow the conversation, understand the context and respond accordingly………..

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry is too frustrating and tedious to talk to you .please before answering follow the conversation, understand the context and respond accordingly………..

I respond to the post as written in the English language. It is up to you to put it in the appropriate context.

I will respond appropriately if you wish to word it a different way appropriately. Be specific.

 

[ratiocinator]

But that is off topic, the point of the OP is that if humans could have not descent from a single couple due to all this genetic problems of having such a small population (as anti creationists ….. Then evolution could have not happed ether because at some point (or points) we evolved from a small population (a population of 1 individual if we grant current hypothesis of abiogenesis)

What current hypothesis of abiogenesis? I'm not aware of any that would necessarily start with one individual. As I also stated earlier, what came first are likely to be very simple replicators of some kind (maybe just strands of RNA), not anything like what we'd call life today - and they would have faced no competition.

 

[leroy]

What current hypothesis of abiogenesis? I'm not aware of any that would necessarily start with one individual. As I also stated earlier, what came first are likely to be very simple replicators of some kind (maybe just strands of RNA), not anything like what we'd call life today - and they would have faced no competition.

There was a point where there was a “first replicator” from which we all descend.

The dilemma of the OP is:

1 If we could have not descend from 2 individuals (Adam and eve) due to all these genetic problems asosiated with “small populations” as anti-creationists claim………….why didn’t ancient organism had the same problem………supposedly at some point in the past (at many points actually) there was a small population of 1 or 2 individuals from which we all evolved.

 

[ratiocinator]

There was a point where there was a “first replicator” from which we all descend.

The dilemma of the OP is:

1 If we could have not descend from 2 individuals (Adam and eve) due to all these genetic problems asosiated with “small populations” as anti-creationists claim………….why didn’t ancient organism had the same problem………supposedly at some point in the past (at many points actually) there was a small population of 1 or 2 individuals from which we all evolved.

The problems associated with inbreeding in sexual reproduction in present day organisms are pretty much irrelevant and in any way make survival from a single couple improbable rather than impossible. Trying to compare to the first replicators (and there's no reason to think there was only one of its kind), which may have been (relatively) simple RNA molecules in an environment with no competition, is a bit silly.

As with everything regarding abiogenesis, this is all speculative. Clearly something happened about 3.7 billion years ago that started life and subsequent evolution and there is endless evidence that a literal first human couple didn't exist that has nothing to do with inbreeding.

 

[tas8831]

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?

It is important to me that you understand that Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are just silly names appended to the conclusions of gene coalescence studies and such, and are not actually supposed to represent specific people.

 

[tas8831]

Is this peer-reviewed?

Is your holy book?

 

[Valjean]

There was a point where there was a “first replicator” from which we all descend.

The dilemma of the OP is:

1 If we could have not descend from 2 individuals (Adam and eve) due to all these genetic problems asosiated with “small populations” as anti-creationists claim………….why didn’t ancient organism had the same problem………supposedly at some point in the past (at many points actually) there was a small population of 1 or 2 individuals from which we all evolved.

Mere replicators are a dime a dozen. They can be created in any high school chemistry lab.

 

[gnostic]

peer-review.
It is not trivial: two bacteria have more chances to survive than two humans.

If you have been paying attention what other have been saying, you would understand there were no sexual reproduction among the earliest bacteria, because there are no male and female sexual organs among bacteria. Bacteria don’t need father cell and mother cell, and it don’t require egg and sperm for fertilization.

Bacteria are unicellular microorganisms, and reproduce asexually. When a single bacteria reach a certain size, the single cell can split into 2 cells; this type of cell division is known as “binary fission”.

Look it up - binary fission.

In fact, lookup bacteria, read up on it, instead of making up claims that you really know nothing about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to the bible Eve was created from a rib from Adams body. So it would not be difficult for them to have sex.
If God can do tha5 he could keep humans alive

"God did it" is universal among theistic arguments.

Great for theology, not so great in science.