RE: Confronting Friends and Family
November 8, 2012 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 8, 2012 at 3:17 am)Daniel Wrote: Why make a straw man argument? I'm not making up my own argument on this matter, I'm using what is well understood and largely agreed upon.Sorry for suggesting that you might mean something slightly more informed.
Quote:Only 50% of the population can bare children and give birth, thus no matter what the males do,Oh I think it just might matter "what the males do"...or "who"
Quote:their raw reproduction remains 50% of the asexuals. Asexual reproduction - every creature in the species is capable of reproducing.Every creature in sexually reproducing species (outliers aside) is also capable of reproduction. Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the reductive nature of sexual reproduction actually entails.
Quote:You can make arguments as to survivability rates, etc, but the fact remains that an sexual reproduction has the cost to the species of a 50% reduction in the rate of reproduction.Ah, so this is the supposed cost, the 2 for 1? Looks to be pretty profitable, and not very costly.
Quote:We know some species literally produce thousands of offspring to give them the "best chance" of survival.Many of those species reproducing sexually, in fact, yes.
Quote:Oh really??Yes, really. How might ns or evolution "do work" on organisms that do not complete the reproductive cycle?
Quote:Let me put it this way then. No one has successfully demonstrated that robust genes cover the full cost of the price of sexual reproduction. It may go some way, it may go a long way, but it can't cover the cost - let alone end up into benefit on its own.The history of life on this rock begs to differ.
Quote:So bdelloid rotifers share this ancestor too, but haven't used sexual reproduction for 80 million years. Doesn't that mean that sexual reproduction can be beneficial, but that it isn't always beneficial?Sure. I can imagine plenty of scenarios in which sexual reproduction would be a detriment. Unfortunately, no one actually gives a shit what either of us can imagine, especially when compared to what happened, eh?
Quote: The idea of a creature "loosing something of great benefit" is nonsensical to evolution. It could only loose it if it wasn't beneficial.You can lose anything so long as it doesn't kill you. Emu's and Ostriches had ancestors that could fly. This isn't some sort of floor setting procedure whereby you go up a "level" and then remain at that point or "higher".
Quote:Sexual reproduction has benefits, obviously, but it also has a cost that comes along with it. Something you've failed to recognize, even with clear scientific observable evidence!That cost being nonexistent, as a clear gain, judging by the longevity, preponderance, and rampant success of sexually reproducing species.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
