Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

Undertoad · 03-10-2009, 12:49 PM

He's got it exactly backwards: male/female reproduction is precisely what permits serious evolution to take place. A creature could create its own progeny's DNA, but that DNA would be the same, wouldn't it? Or the changes that it would have would be random. But when two different sets of DNA come together, you have as xoB said, non-random traits that carry on, including recessive traits, which make certain progeny more likely to succeed and to continue to combine their DNA with others.

Witness the practice in plants, which Mr. Comfort does not mention. We have a male holly tree in our front yard. Oddly enough that means it has no berries. It's not that the male and the female trees fuck to have children. It's that having different sexes and combining their DNA is the best way for them to evolve.

03-10-2009, 12:49 PM	#30
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	He's got it exactly backwards: male/female reproduction is precisely what permits serious evolution to take place. A creature could create its own progeny's DNA, but that DNA would be the same, wouldn't it? Or the changes that it would have would be random. But when two different sets of DNA come together, you have as xoB said, non-random traits that carry on, including recessive traits, which make certain progeny more likely to succeed and to continue to combine their DNA with others. Witness the practice in plants, which Mr. Comfort does not mention. We have a male holly tree in our front yard. Oddly enough that means it has no berries. It's not that the male and the female trees fuck to have children. It's that having different sexes and combining their DNA is the best way for them to evolve.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)