How did sex pop up? (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 25, 2009, 16:40 (5540 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George has kindly provided some more website material to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction, and has given us some comments from the RD net on Dawkins' claim that evolution is "the creator of life". I'm combining these, since life and reproduction go hand in hand (no doubt we can all think of a more appropriate anatomical image).-I really appreciate these references, George, although the Wikipedia one had me struggling, and my dictionary evolved a new set of dog-ears.-These sites are an education in themselves. Maybe one day scientists will know which of the various theories is the right one. I can only go back to the point that has been made over and over again in these posts: none of us are denying that sexual reproduction evolved. The two articles remain admirably, scientifically neutral, as they should be. But on this forum we are going that one, unscientific step further, to look for the degree of probability that might tip the balance towards design or chance. Under Viral Eukaryogenesis, we have verbs like, "took over", "transferred", "transitioned". We read that similarities between the pox-like virus, as the lysogenic virus, and eukaryotic nuclei include "a double stranded DNA genome, a linear chromosome with short telomeric repeats, a complex membrane bound capsid, the ability to produce capped mRNA, and the ability to export the capped mRNA across the viral membrane into the cytoplasm." And this is just a part of one component of the process of sexual reproduction. Even a part of the part is "complex". Is it simple enough for D-I-Y?-The comments from the Dawkins site were admirably restrained, though no-one has quite cottoned onto the fact that Dawkins specifically stated that it was Darwinian evolution that created life. But good for JPLipsitz, and also for Quine, who acknowledges that removing the prop of necessity "does not negate Theism, it just has less to stand on." I think that is a fair comment. Jos Gibbons asks how far back we should go: "Evolution began once self-replicators existed, and abiogenesis extends at least that far back, but one would probably insist on defining it as going further [...] since the existence of self-replicators needs explanation, too." I would say that every step, every change, needs explanation, and the greater the complexity, the more difficult it is to believe in the ability of unconscious organisms to change their own mechanisms (I'm allowed to use that word now, George, thanks to Wikipedia!). This, of course, is the core of our discussion.-I'd be interested to hear David's response to Steve Zara's comment on the RNA World model.