[Asyncritus (OP)]

1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.

2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!

So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you?  []

Asyncritus - you really haven't understood a thing, have you?

Oh yes I have.

1 I understand that acquired characteristics CAN'T be inherited and

2 I understand that beneficial mutations occur so rarely that they cannot possibly have produced the 6,000,000 species alive today from any common ancestor(s).

So what do you think of that, then?

[atrox]

There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.

And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..

2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
      Rassenkreis  (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
        Ex.  Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
              adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
              ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct

(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)

[Asyncritus (OP)]

There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.

And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..

Ut the salamander is a living fossil. I gave you the reference, so you know it.

2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
      Rassenkreis  (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
        Ex.  Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
              adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
              ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct

(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)

And have we got a single nice new genus with all these species? No, we don't. And what about these 6,000, 000 species today then? Where did they come from?

[blakestyger]

So what do you think of that, then?

I think that as we both come from opposite paradigms no meaningful discussion can take place between us.
For what it's worth, a careful reading of Life, An Authorised Biography by Richard Fortey will prevent you from having to defend this hopeless position you have chosen - good luck.

[lyner]

I showed you the 33,127 generations didn't do it in Lenski's experiment. How many more do you need? I don't call that 'fantastically quickly', do you?

If a human generation is 14 years (to reach sexual maturity) then that's 33,127 x 14 = 464,000 years for NO new species to evolve. Tough luck!

I thought bacteria reproduce asexually. Did you not understand the relevance of sexual reproduction and the consequent change in time scale for evolution?

You say there is no evidence for new species - aren't the museums full of them? Doesn't the DNA analysis of long dead organisms reveal it?

You obviously have a 'faith' issue here. Try to concentrate on evidence if you want to talk about Science. Religion and Science don't have to be mutually exclusive, you know. Or are you going to join an Amish community? (Even they have come to terms with some of this new fangled modern Science.)

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Hey Sophie

How did sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction?

[atrox]

oh my....
even some asexual individues change genetic materials from time to time ... if you finally understood the princibles of evolution, than there is no need to explain anything further...
otherwise I´m just not willing to explain it again

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Oh come on Atrox. Don't be so chicken.

All you have to do is show how a cell which is happily dividing into two every day of its life, can suddenly decide that

It's going to split its number of chromosomes into EXACTLY HALF.

Then each half is going to meet up with another one that's divided into EXACTLY HALF as well.

Then they are going to join up somehow.

Then the 2 HALF nuclei are going to join up and form the ORIGINAL whole number and live happily ever after.

Now that's not too difficult, is it? Heh heh.

[blakestyger]

Asyncritus

You've got some reading to do.  []

[atrox]

... can suddenly decide that

suddenly? decide? ...I really wonder what idea of the theorie of evolution you have...apparantly not even close to the actual one...even after all these discussions now...

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Asyncritus

You've got some reading to do.  roll eyes

Like what do you have in mind?

[Asyncritus (OP)]

... can suddenly decide that

suddenly? decide? ...I really wonder what idea of the theorie of evolution you have...apparantly not even close to the actual one...even after all these discussions now...

Come on atrox, don't be a spoilsport now.

Here's a little bacterial cell. It is dividing into two every 2 hours, asexually, and it can do that all year, no problem.

Over there is another organism. It doesn't divide into two.

It counts its chromosomes, finds 800. Now it sez to itself, hey sexual reproduction is a good thing.

So it divides its chromosomes into 400 in two new cells. Each one is going to die, because it's 400 short!

So it looks round, and hey presto, over there is another one with 400 chromosomes too. So it rushes over there, and heck, there's a big chemical wall preventing it from going in! So both die.

Now what happens? I dunno, but I could go on like this all day, making up stupid stories like this trying to figure out how it really happened.

Why not try it? It's good for a laugh if nothing else!

How about it Sophie?

[atrox]

just read something about the reproductional cycle of plant lice ... maybe than you will understand, that there is no either...or in evolution. There are a lot of steps inbetween. No cell ever had to decide between reproducing sexual or nonsexual (and, btw, they never had to decide and surely not suddenly as you still try to imply!). The same way as no fish had to decide to stay in water or to go to the desert.. []

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Well, if they didn't decide, and they didn't do it suddenly, then how did fish get on to dry land?

Are they stupid, or what? Or did they tippy-toe out and dry out: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

And if they didn't decide to be sexual instead of asexual, why did one change into the other?

Nope. That didn't evolve, that's for sure.

[BenV]

You used to argue sensibly, but I fear you may have run out of reasonable comments.

Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist?  So you are aware that some fish are perfectly capable of spending periods of time outside of the water.

You clearly need to read the 'evolution of sexual reproduction' thread again - it was explained perfectly well there, you presented your arguments and others refuted them.

[atrox]

Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist? 

lol, yes she/he knows...but just ignores...as always ;-)
We had this discussion about fish going on land before (eels, lungfish, mudskipper), but of course thats no proof that sudden is not a word of a evolutionists vocabulary...  []

[_Stefan_]

Asyncritus, your posts just get inaner by the day. You continuously demonstrate profound ignorance of biology. If you wish to discuss these topics, you should at least understand what you're talking about first. There are so many resources available to you. Please stop wasting our time with your straw men.

[Asyncritus (OP)]

You used to argue sensibly, but I fear you may have run out of reasonable comments.

Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist?  So you are aware that some fish are perfectly capable of spending periods of time outside of the water.

You clearly need to read the 'evolution of sexual reproduction' thread again - it was explained perfectly well there, you presented your arguments and others refuted them.

I think you got that the wrong way round. Others presented arguments, and I refuted them!

Nobody has yet said anything of why or how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.

And don't tell me 'it's a good idea because...' I know it's a good idea. I want to know when asexual became sexual and why did the change take place?

[_Stefan_]

Don't you have access to the trillions of other pages of the internet? You disregard every explanation you're given here, so why should we bother any more? 

[Asyncritus (OP)]

Because unless you do, the readership will know that you have no explanation of this enormously important phenomenon.

Now you don't want that, do you?