http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp
http://kgov.com/The-Origin-of-Sexual-Reproduction
Quote:
ReMine Quotes Dawkins: "Sexual reproduction is analogous to a roulette game in which the player throws away half his chips at each spin. ...the existence of sexual reproduction really is a huge paradox."
What is the purpose of sex (as opposed to the asexual reproduction which we see in simple creatures)? Sex DOUBLES the cost of maintaining populations. In other words, amongst asexual creatures, each creatures needs to have one offspring to keep population size together; the cost is basically one. For creatures which use sexual reproduction, each creature needs to be involved in procreating TWO like creatures, i.e. the cost is DOUBLED!!
The mathematics behind evolutionism says that increasing this genetic cost just a few percentage points will doom a species.....
The question is, what benefit could there possibly be to sexual reproduction that it would ever have evolved (if you believe in evolution ) or, equivalently for the more enlightened, why would a creator have created such a thing?
Most of the material I see claims that there is no clear answer to this one. I claim that there is and that it should be fairly obvious. Worst case on the planet is Saudi Arabia:
https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
or you could do a Google image search on "Spanish Hapsburgs" for what the same thing did to European royalty a few centuries ago. They all look sort of like the Frankenstein monster.
That's just from large numbers of people marrying cousins. Imagine how bad it would be if the absolute same genetic profile simply kept on reproducing ITSELF???
As I see it, the purpose of sex is to prevent genetic mutations from driving complex species to extinction within a few generations. This is why there seems to be all the trouble with bacteria mutating willy-nilly; doesn't seem to be a problem for bacteria but it would destroy a complex species.
But, WAIT!! Aren't mutations supposed to be the driving mechanism of evolution itself?? What's wrong with this picture and with a theory which tries to explain our entire biosphere with mutations??
Again, the standard statement of the theory of evolution is that mutations create new kinds of creatures and then natural selection weeds out the unfit from the new kinds. Natural selection itself is a destructive process and an agency of stasis and does not CREATE anything.
http://kgov.com/The-Origin-of-Sexual-Reproduction
Quote:
ReMine Quotes Dawkins: "Sexual reproduction is analogous to a roulette game in which the player throws away half his chips at each spin. ...the existence of sexual reproduction really is a huge paradox."
What is the purpose of sex (as opposed to the asexual reproduction which we see in simple creatures)? Sex DOUBLES the cost of maintaining populations. In other words, amongst asexual creatures, each creatures needs to have one offspring to keep population size together; the cost is basically one. For creatures which use sexual reproduction, each creature needs to be involved in procreating TWO like creatures, i.e. the cost is DOUBLED!!
The mathematics behind evolutionism says that increasing this genetic cost just a few percentage points will doom a species.....
The question is, what benefit could there possibly be to sexual reproduction that it would ever have evolved (if you believe in evolution ) or, equivalently for the more enlightened, why would a creator have created such a thing?
Most of the material I see claims that there is no clear answer to this one. I claim that there is and that it should be fairly obvious. Worst case on the planet is Saudi Arabia:
https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
or you could do a Google image search on "Spanish Hapsburgs" for what the same thing did to European royalty a few centuries ago. They all look sort of like the Frankenstein monster.
That's just from large numbers of people marrying cousins. Imagine how bad it would be if the absolute same genetic profile simply kept on reproducing ITSELF???
As I see it, the purpose of sex is to prevent genetic mutations from driving complex species to extinction within a few generations. This is why there seems to be all the trouble with bacteria mutating willy-nilly; doesn't seem to be a problem for bacteria but it would destroy a complex species.
But, WAIT!! Aren't mutations supposed to be the driving mechanism of evolution itself?? What's wrong with this picture and with a theory which tries to explain our entire biosphere with mutations??
Again, the standard statement of the theory of evolution is that mutations create new kinds of creatures and then natural selection weeds out the unfit from the new kinds. Natural selection itself is a destructive process and an agency of stasis and does not CREATE anything.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=270883&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire