When it comes to the question of origins I find it reasonable to accept the idea that the current populations derived from original pairs. I do not find the idea that the current populations derived from eons of evolution wherein life began from non-life to be reasonable. However, I am not a biologist. The idea of slicing up frogs never appealed to me. But I do enjoy reading the biologists descriptions of how things are and find it fascinating. In light of the evolutionary guiding principles of survival of the fittest, mutations adding genetic material, and natural selection I would appreciate it if the Freepers of the evolutionary persuasion would give me their ideas on the following:
1. Assuming that life proceeded from non-life and the human organism derived from there, was the first development asexual? Or did two bisexual branches somehow mutate? In other words, what was the genesis of the sexes?
2. Wouldn’t asexual development satisfy the survival of the fittest paradigm better than bisexual development?
3. How can the process of meiosis and its attendant reduction of genetic material comply with evolutionary principles?
4. What is your rebuttal to the creationist arguments from irreducibly complex systems? For instance, how do the subsystems that are useless by themselves survive while waiting for the next mutations to ultimately produce the working system?
I still believe that a debate between credentialed biologists only regarding the merits of the ToE would be enlightening. We could just publish the results and slow all of the banter (I assume it is all good natured). I did research the Sagan/Warren episode and validated my claims on the previous HE thread.
Also, I have tried to understand how ToE could have evolved the idea that there is a God, but it hurts my pea-sized brain.
Perhaps, but it's not nearly as much fun.
Your question regarding bisexuality is a good one. Unfortunately a good answer would be textbook size but let me give it a shot.
First step might be to clarify that some features exist not because they are so perfect but because there is no particular evolutionary pressure against them.
Second the majority of living things are not sexual in our male/female sense. One organism has 28,000 mating strains. Others change gender according to environmental factors like temperature. Some insects can produce tens of female-female generations before any male involvement occurs. Plants have something called alternation of generations. One has all of its chromomsomes in a linked ring, reducing variability to a minimum.
Each of these adaptations continues to exist only because it works or, at least, does not significantly harm the reproductive effectiveness of the organism involved.
Tomorrow I'll try to get you some links if you think that'll be useful.
Actually, the folks studying species extinction say that about 8 pairs are required for any species to survive. For example they brought back the Condor with a dozen or so individuals.
I'm not sure why this is necessary, but I assume to prevent harmful mutations from becoming the norm. Like the old saw about not marrying your sister.
This is one of the problems with the story of Noah. Saving two of every species just wouldn't work.