The Magical/Miraculous origin of sex!

[MarsCydonia]

The Magical/Miraculous origin of sex!

Cdesign proponentsists have argued that since evolutionary biology has not yet provided a full answer to the origin of sexual reproduction, their personnal incredulity for the possibility of natural process origin makes cdesignism the only possible explanation.

To quote Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. cdesign proponentsists

The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction... We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

To quote Elshamah

Evolution or design? You will be amazed at the complexity and different systems needed to be in place for human reproduction to be possible! ... The human reproductive process is a complicated process of systems that could not have come about gradually.
Evolution, or design ? definitively, design.

Why would animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction is a good question that evolutionary seek to answer, to the cdesign proponentsists, I would also ask why would god?

Did not Harrub and Thompson just knock out their god by saying the he chose a more costly and inefficient means of reproduction? Can any cdesign proponentsists explain why their god, instead of letting Adam reproduce by asexually, chose a means of sexual reproductions that requires two participants? Wouldn't asexual reproduction have a more efficient way to ensure that man be "fruitful and multiply"? Why did the designer obviously chose the less efficient design?


On a more humorous note, I always had to ask: when did the penis come into being? Was Adam created with it from the beginning? Why would God tack-on this sexual organ on Adam if it originally had no purpose? Does it mean that God also has purposeless penis since Adam was created in his image? Was it added after the creation of Eve? etc.

Yet another attempt to argue that we should dismiss natural processes as the possible origin of something because cdesign proponentsists simply find it too incredible should make you realize that their "rationalization" is just as if not more incredible. Would they be fine with us rejecting creationism purely out of incredulity rather than its complete lack of evidence?

 

[red]

Did not Harrub and Thompson just knock out their god by saying the he chose a more costly and inefficient means of reproduction? Can any cdesign proponentsists explain why their god, instead of letting Adam reproduce by asexually, chose a means of sexual reproductions that requires two participants? Wouldn't asexual reproduction have a more efficient way to ensure that man be "fruitful and multiply"? Why did the designer obviously chose the less efficient design?

You have missed the point.
They said, We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex. So Adam and Eve were created by their god for sexual reproduction, and all other animals which use the same means were also god's creatures.
Those other forms of life reproducing asexually would not have evolved more complex ways of generating offspring as they were properly designed from the outset.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Population benefits of sexual selection explain the existence of males

Male competition to reproduce has much the same effect as predation has on prey species - the weak fall by the wayside whilst the healthier live to reproduce.

Overall, there are health benefits to species.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

Gentlemen, you are missing the point:

Why would animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction is a good question that evolutionary (biologists) seek to answer (but) to the cdesign proponentsists, I would also ask why would god?

From the evolutionary biologists perspective, the natural mechanisms that lead to sexual reproductions are not fully understood and from cdesign proponentsists, we know what is the only mechanism that could lead to sexual reproduction: magic.

But the issue of my post was not the "how", it is the "why".

And this "why" should be something cdesign proponentsists should at least seek to answer as this is a fundamental difference between evolutionary biologists and cdesign proponentsists, natural mechanisms do not have intent but their god does.

So why did god intend for man to have means of sexual reproduction that cdesign proponentsists call "costly and inefficient"?

Why would god choose this design for his most special creation, created in his image, when again, it is according to cdesign proponentsists, "costly and inefficient"?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Why, as a philosophical question, only matters to theists.

For evolution, the how explains the why - it's more effective in producing healthier descendants.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Nick Lane's new book hypothesizes that the development of sexes was driven -- in part at least -- by the need to maintain compatibility between mitochondrial and nuclear DNA -- by only passing mitochondria from one parent it reduces risk of incompatibility.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Gentlemen, you are missing the point:

Why would animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction is a good question that evolutionary (biologists) seek to answer (but) to the cdesign proponentsists, I would also ask why would god?

From the evolutionary biologists perspective, the natural mechanisms that lead to sexual reproductions are not fully understood and from cdesign proponentsists, we know what is the only mechanism that could lead to sexual reproduction: magic.

But the issue of my post was not the "how", it is the "why".

And this "why" should be something cdesign proponentsists should at least seek to answer as this is a fundamental difference between evolutionary biologists and cdesign proponentsists, natural mechanisms do not have intent but their god does.

So why did god intend for man to have means of sexual reproduction that cdesign proponentsists call "costly and inefficient"?

Why would god choose this design for his most special creation, created in his image, when again, it is according to cdesign proponentsists, "costly and inefficient"?

This was the point I was trying to make in another thread. Complexity is not a signature if good design. Intelligent design creationists propose the smartest being in existence created everything, yet so much of what it "designed" has terrible design flaws. Beyond that, the key to a great design is simplicity. The more efficient something is design, the simpler it is. Complexity in designs comes about when there are limitations of the material or designer. Again since the smartest being in existence is creating everything out if nothing, what limitation could exist to account for all the poor design we see in the universe?

 

[Rando]

If you want to talk about the origins of sex I would highly recommend Lithodidman's series on it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3958DE95835B24A5

[Youtube]nP7EBESQTQY&list=PL3958DE95835B24A5&index=1[/Youtube]

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If you want to talk about the origins of sex I would highly recommend Lithodidman's series on it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3958DE95835B24A5

[Youtube]nP7EBESQTQY&list=PL3958DE95835B24A5&index=1[/Youtube]

The first link takes you to LithodidMan's play-list for the series.

The second link is unnecessary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Was Adam created without a ballsack? Did his cells lack mitochondria? Creationism is idiotic on the face of it.

 

[red]

Was Adam created without a ballsack? Did his cells lack mitochondria? Creationism is idiotic on the face of it.

Of course not!
God fully endowed Adam to reproduce sexually. Unfortunately Adam took a ribbing from God and asexually created Eve, which must have been a disappointing start to life, given (Genesis 1.27) women had already been created.
Nevertheless, everything you need to know was fully put in place in less than 7 days, and has endured to this. We are fortunate to have this well explained in a well sold tome.
Did you buy it?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Was Adam created without a ballsack? Did his cells lack mitochondria? Creationism is idiotic on the face of it.

[sarcasm]Oh you silly evolutionist. Do you not know that the Omphalos Hypothesis takes care of all of this?[/sarcasm]

:lol: