"No sex" law in Darwinism

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless, my notice needs to be published. If it is not published before, it needs peer-review.
It is not trivial: two bacteria have more chances to survive than two humans.

Then what are you on about in your op?

Gratz, you just dissmissed your own drivel in the OP by acknowledging this.

 

[questfortruth]

Then what are you on about in your op?

Gratz, you just dissmissed your own drivel in the OP by acknowledging this.

So, two small birds have fewer chances to survive on a life-less planet than two big monkeys?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, two small birds have fewer chances to survive on a life-less planet than two big monkeys?

What??? If there are only 2 and no other life, both cases would die out, because both your examples rely on other life to get food.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

The first 'life on earth' did not begin as an individual it began as a primitive life population arising out of an ideal chemical and physical environment. Present evidence indicates that life arose in thermal caverns near the continental spreading Mid-ocean ridges.

Like abiogenesis evolution takes place in evolving populations, and not in one or a few individuals.

 

[Yerda]

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

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.

 

[ChristineM]

And again

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, two small birds have fewer chances to survive on a life-less planet than two big monkeys?

I don't even know how to respond.
I can't take this comment seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

You misunderstand what mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam even mean. They were NOT the only people of their time. They were a part of a population. And other people in the populations at both of those time contributed to our genetics now.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent women for whom all people today come as an unbroken chain of *women* ancestors until today. So, the mother of your mother of your mother of your mother... A line back that goes only through women.

Same with Y-chromosome Adam. It is an unbroken chain of *men* going back.

But if, for example, you alternated men and women going back: your mother, her father, his mother, her father, etc, then you would get a *different* person that either Adam or Eve who almost certainly lived at a different time than either of them.

 

[Polymath257]

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

LUCA=Last Universal Common Ancestor.

LUCA happened after the first life. We don't have a separate acronym for the first living things (that I am aware of).

 

[leroy]

This is incorrect. Nobody suggests LUCA was the first life. It is merely the last common ancestor of the life we see today and in the fossil record. There could have been other branches of the tree of life before LUCA, none of whose descendants have survived or left evidence: Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

Irrelevant the point of the OP is that at some point there was a “single life” from which we all descend.

IF you started with a pro life with a simple genome and it started to mutated, chances say that it would have deteriorate a go extinct due to genetic noise.

As an analogy if you star with a simple recipe for how to bake a simple cake. And you start to add and remove letters randomly (analogous to mutations) you will end up with a mess (a non-viable recepie)

 

[exchemist]

Irrelevant the point of the OP is that at some point there was a “single life” from which we all descend.

IF you started with a pro life with a simple genome and it started to mutated, chances say that it would have deteriorate a go extinct due to genetic noise.

As an analogy if you star with a simple recipe for how to bake a simple cake. And you start to add and remove letters randomly (analogous to mutations) you will end up with a mess (a non-viable recepie)

My object was to correct a false statement about science, for the benefit of other readers.

 

[ratiocinator]

Irrelevant the point of the OP is that at some point there was a “single life” from which we all descend.

If you mean a single individual, you've missed the point. Some organism can be the ancestor of everything alive today without being the only one of its kind.

IF you started with a pro life with a simple genome and it started to mutated, chances say that it would have deteriorate a go extinct due to genetic noise.

As an analogy if you star with a simple recipe for how to bake a simple cake. And you start to add and remove letters randomly (analogous to mutations) you will end up with a mess (a non-viable recepie)

So you don't understand natural selection.....

 

[Valjean]

So, two small birds have fewer chances to survive on a life-less planet than two big monkeys?

How would either survive on a lifeless planet?

 

[Yazata]

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 does create an interesting conundrum.

My own belief is that popular science writers take these ideas much too literally. I'm hugely skeptical that all humans are descended from a single individual, whether male or female. That idea is basically just an artifact of the methodology. We are more plausibly descended from populations of interbreeding individuals.

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.

Yes.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth.

Of course not.

The first life was a single being.

Perhaps not a particular individual, but a population of individuals of a single sort. LUCA in this case, the "last universal common ancestor". I think that I agree with Polymath (This just in! Hell freezing over!!) that LUCA was in turn the result of a whole process of prior chemical evolution in which things like fundamental prokaryotic cell structure and the basic genetic code being hammered out in some as yet unknown way.

So LUCA was likely the result of a prior line of development, one in which the dividing line between chemistry and biology was increasingly vague and indistinct. I'm doubtful whether we could even identify when life first appeared if we were somehow able to examine that development. It was probably gradual, incremental and step-by-step, with any choice of which step was the appearance of the first life left rather arbitrary.

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?

I don't understand that. 2021? Where did that come from?

And LUCA probably didn't reproduce sexually. It probably did exchange genetic material with others of its kind as bacteria still do today, but it probably reproduced by cell division.

 

[Valjean]

Irrelevant the point of the OP is that at some point there was a “single life” from which we all descend.

Which was billions of years before any mitochondrial anything.

IF you started with a pro life with a simple genome and it started to mutated, chances say that it would have deteriorate a go extinct due to genetic noise.

Please explain why. Do you think mutations are always deleterious? Do you understand that any deleterious changes are discarded and the useful ones kept for the next roll of the dice?

As an analogy if you star with a simple recipe for how to bake a simple cake. And you start to add and remove letters randomly (analogous to mutations) you will end up with a mess (a non-viable recepie)

If you take a million chefs, each baking a cake an hour, with random ingredient additions and deletions; abandoning the failed recipes and further tweaking the good ones -- I'd expect some pretty good cakes, before long.

 

[questfortruth]

Well, I have got my answers. Thank you.

 

[leroy]

If y

So you don't understand natural selection.....

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

 

[leroy]

Which was billions of years before any mitochondrial anything.
Please explain why. Do you think mutations are always deleterious? Do you understand that any deleterious changes are discarded and the useful ones kept for the next roll of the dice?

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 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?

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.

In my opinion that is a good question do you have an answer?

If you take a million chefs, each baking a cake an hour, with random ingredient additions and deletions; abandoning the failed recipes and further tweaking the good ones -- I'd expect some pretty good cakes, before long.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are displaying a complete misunderstanding of generics and the roles played by Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

But i am in no way surprised

My favorite cheese is still Parmesan.
I even enjoy this low brow stuff...

If staff think I'm trying to derail the thread, I'm not.
This is an appropriate post for this thread.
Ask @ChristineM if necessary.

 

[ChristineM]

My favorite cheese is still Parmesan.
I even enjoy this low brow stuff...

If staff think I'm trying to derail the thread, I'm not.
This is an appropriate post for this thread.
Ask @ChristineM if necessary.

Hey, don't blame me