Comments on: How not to argue against evolution

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:33:39 +0000

You are right, they do have to argue scientifically. Otherwise they would look even more out of touch with reality than they already do.

By: Numerous

Numerous — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:56:11 +0000

Then after they give some more crappy arguments, we'll do the same thing and let them re-update their obsolete s**t.
See, the thing is, they have to argue scientifically. That means we're (atheists as a whole) on our intellectual home turf. Then again, you could say that on anything since we're talking about reality.

By: Numerous

Numerous — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:54:41 +0000

I vote we email them a link. Let them try and update the page, see if they're willing to update their obselete s**t.

By: dc

dc — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000

actually from the gene's eye view (GEV), it would seem sexual reproduction is in fact a disadvantage both because an individual gene stands only a 50% chance of being passed on to the offspring of a sexual individual as compared to much closer to 100% for an asexual one, and also an asexual individual is much more likely to leave offspring than a sexual one as in sexual species mate competition is a concern. so i believe it is a legitimate question to ask. however your explanation is not entirely correct in that you state that the advantage of gene shuffling is gene shuffling. it would be better to give specifics such as the theory that the main advantage of sexual reproduction is that it acts as a vaccination against parasites. i suggest reading "the red queen- sex and the evolution of human nature. other than that good article

By: jamesatracy

jamesatracy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:00:02 +0000

Thanks for the feed back. Perhaps I can clarify. I did not specifically say from a specific gene's view, but from a genetic view the better equipped the adult is to care for its infant the better chance that infant has to survive to adulthood and continue the reproductive line. There are obviously trade offs here. Complex organisms like the higher mammals require longer periods of time spent in the care of their parents.

The advantage of gene shuffling, the way I see it, is that it increases the amount of variation in the population and therefore the amount of raw material for natural selection. Hence, natural selection does not rely exclusively on mutations. The parasitic advantage sounds interesting – I'll need to look more into it. Thanks for the suggestion.