Replies

"There are enough "kritters", as you call them, that exist in both sexual and asexual reproductive forms and thus can easily represent transitional stages. This occurs in many taxonomies, from the simplest single cells (look up "conjugation") to relatively complex lifeforms (look up "caenorhabditis")."

This is the fallacy of 'begging the question' for assuming that what exists has 'evolved' and can be organized into 'transitional stages'.

"In an evolutionary context, sexual reproduction will generally win out despite the need for a mate. This can be proven by

This is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' for assuming that because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed that P is therefore 'supported'.

The fact that evolutionary 'arguments' are firmly based in logical fallacy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the naturalistic philosophy that underlies belief in 'evolution'.

This is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' for assuming that because P 'predicts' Q and Q is observed that P is therefore 'supported'.

I think it's a lame-ass attempt to misuse the contrapositive (if P-->Q implies if ^Q-->^P) contrapositive; valid

replaced with (if P-->Q implies if ^ (^Q) --> ^ (^P), shortened to if Q-->P) BZZZT.

Humorous canonical example is :

If that chair had an invisible cat in it, the chair would look empty; but that chair does look empty; there is therefore an invisible cat in the chair.

But the more important question(s) for the biologist are these.

Given that yeast can reproduce both by budding and by exchange of genetic material...

How did sexual organs form? At what point in the development of multicellular creatures?

Did the formation of these structures require new genes not present before?

If they did, then how was it assured that the genes in the "male-like" and "female-like" gametes were compatible?

What was the survival advantage (the other animals no-doubt were only too happy to go tell protohermaphrodite to go screw itself, but I fail to see how genetic mixing is greatly improved: it's even worse than incest).

Let me know if I'm all wet on these questions, I haven't found answers in the molecular biology or biochem textbooks I've run across.

Cheers!

>> “The fact that evolutionary ‘arguments’ are firmly based in logical fallacy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the naturalistic philosophy that underlies belief in ‘evolution’ “. <<

.
You have to admit that evolution is the most theologically resilient, and diverse religion on Earth.

No rules - no worries.