Tony c q: Why does talkorigins.org seem to beat around the bush sometimes?

Question

Claim CB350, or the claim that sex cannot have evolved is something that creationists use a lot against evolution. Lets see what talk origins says against this claim:

It starts by saying:
"The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997)."

This appeal to authority sites Alexey Kondrashov. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex and search for his name, you will find the "deterministic mutation hypothesis" which he created. In the last paragraph you see that "there has been much criticism of

Kondrashov's theory, since it relies on two key restrictive conditions." In other words, Kandrashov should not be considered an expert as talk origins has considered him by citing his work.

Talk origins continues:
"The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently."

In an attempt to debunk the proposed argument, they attempt to attack one of the weaker arguments. In other words, instead of focusing on the evolution of sex, they focus on the fact that there is no need for males and females to evolve independently. So what? That doesn't support their argument.

Talk origins finishes:
"Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility

would rapidly be selected against."

This conclusion deviates from the argument, because ultimately it didn't answer how sexual organs were slowly created, and how the switching between asexual and sexual reproduction happened. In other words, it never got around to explaining what the intermediate stages actually were.

Kenshin Himura, its called talk origins, not talk science and biology. If that were the case I wouldn't be asking here.

Since they are using Alexey to give weight to their argument, it is an appeal to authority. By citing him, they show that in their opinion he is an expert in the field.

atheist, talk origins is attempting to show that no claim actually points out a tiny problem. The truth though, is that there are many small problems in the works of evolution. Sure it doesn't mean that evolution is completely false, but lets not make people think that there is no such thing as a flaw in evolution.

Great gazoo, remember that I am pointing out how talk origins tries to explain claims, without actually explaining anything concrete. If it actually provided the names of species and susbtantial proof of every intermediate link, I would happily embrace it as true.

Andymcj78 (atheist), talk origins thinks they have an infallible line of responses to all sorts of claims, but really they don't. Assume that they rip up my personal arguments, it wouldn't make a difference in the fact that several of their own arguments are fragile.

Since Kenshin Himura answer is no longer posted for whatever the reason, I will post what Himura responded here:

"Why are you *****ing to us on R&S?

Btw, citing sources is not an appeal to authority, genius."

I starred out the word Himura used so that I wouldn't offend anyone.

The great gazoo said:
"You missed the point completely.

There are plenty of animals that can produce offspring both ways so it isn't necessary that there is a sudden jump. A lot of reptiles do it. Reptiles also have simpler organs being that they are closer to where the switch is made. Most fish reproduce sexually and some are just both sexes.

You want to make out that there is a big jump when in fact there are all kinds of things that are in between.

Added: They said pretty much what I just said. They just assumed that you were reading above a fourth grade level and could understand."

You just talked about the many animals that do this and that, and fail to point out any species in particular. I understand your scenerio, but expected more from the educated writers at talk origins.

They are correct, I do read above a fourth grade level, and going one step further, I write above a fourth grade level too.

("it isn't necessary that there is a sudden jump")

Answer 1

you said bush...lol

Answer 2

You missed the point completely.

There are plenty of animals that can produce offspring both ways so it isn't necessary that there is a sudden jump. A lot of reptiles do it. Reptiles also have simpler organs being that they are closer to where the switch is made. Most fish reproduce sexually and some are just both sexes.

You want to make out that there is a big jump when in fact there are all kinds of things that are in between.

Added: They said pretty much what I just said. They just assumed that you were reading above a fourth grade level and could understand.

Answer 3

Actually, the answer points to several different kinds of reproduction. The verity of reproductive methods now makes is difficult to extrapolate exactly HOW sex and the respective organs evolved. Just because science doesn't have an answer for every teeny tiny little aspect of how different things came into being doesn't mean the theory is flawed. It just means that the answer is unknown at this time. The unknown keeps people looking.

Answer 4

i'm fairly ordinary and to the ingredient. i'm getting aggravated whilst others communicate lots and say no longer something in any respect. such as you are able to shop me time and shop your breath via reducing to the ingredient. it may seem recommend ... lol yet i'm effective. only inpatient

Answer 5

It takes an absolute claim ('cannot have evolved') and provides a plausible means by which it could have.

Answer 6

That's because they are currently not known. Science doesn't have all the answers.