That was your adult response?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evidence of evolution: Sex ratio as a function of male competition
- Thread starter james_bond_3rd
- Start date
Your ignorance is glaring:
The Standard International unit definition defines the speed of light to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. So there is no need to prove it neither a need for appealling to authority. It is a scientific definition.
The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance.
Your misrepresentation of Susskind has been thouroughly exposed in another thread. There is no need to rehash it here.
Quote from jem:
O.k.
Before I lecture you on the the science regarding the cosmological constant and prove you can do nothing but rely on authority for your counter argument.
I will also straighten you out on the use of authority in science.
Prove that the speed of light is constant and always has been.
The Standard International unit definition defines the speed of light to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. So there is no need to prove it neither a need for appealling to authority. It is a scientific definition.
They're not. All claims that fingerprints are unique are exaggerated. It's a probability question, similar to but less accurate than DNA matching. All fingerprint scanning softwares are written using probability matrix. The likelihood that two people have identical fingerprints is exceedingly small but not zero.Quote from jem:
Prove fingerprints are unique.
Quote from jem:
This list can go on.
The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance.
Quote from jem:
Leonard Susskind said ...
Your misrepresentation of Susskind has been thouroughly exposed in another thread. There is no need to rehash it here.
Quote from pattersb:
please explain ... it was a genuine comment.
Alright.
I started out with the discussion of 1:1 ratio because that was what everyone knows about. The real point was contained in the link I gave, which points out that in the animal kingdom this ratio varies greatly from species to species. If everything is 1:1 then it's not very interesting, and even if evolution theory can predict it, it's not a big deal, since there are alternative explanations as other posts here have pointed out.
It gets interesting when the ratio deviates far from 1:1, and the evolution theory gets it right every single time! It hooks the sex ratio directly to the evolution history of each species. The designer would have to go through a great deal of trouble to "design" the large variety of ratios we see today.
Of course anyone focusing on the 1:1 ratio completely missed the point.
"The designer would have to go through a great deal of trouble to "design" the large variety of ratios we see today."
You know this how? You know what would be a "great deal of trouble" for the Creator of the Universe?
Too funny...
"It hooks the sex ratio directly to the evolution history of each species."
What evolutionary history of the human species...
You know this how? You know what would be a "great deal of trouble" for the Creator of the Universe?
Too funny...
"It hooks the sex ratio directly to the evolution history of each species."
What evolutionary history of the human species...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Alright.
I started out with the discussion of 1:1 ratio because that was what everyone knows about. The real point was contained in the link I gave, which points out that in the animal kingdom this ratio varies greatly from species to species. If everything is 1:1 then it's not very interesting, and even if evolution theory can predict it, it's not a big deal, since there are alternative explanations as other posts here have pointed out.
It gets interesting when the ratio deviates far from 1:1, and the evolution theory gets it right every single time! It hooks the sex ratio directly to the evolution history of each species. The designer would have to go through a great deal of trouble to "design" the large variety of ratios we see today.
Of course anyone focusing on the 1:1 ratio completely missed the point.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
"The designer would have to go through a great deal of trouble to "design" the large variety of ratios we see today."
You know this how? You know what would be a "great deal of trouble" for the Creator of the Universe?
Too funny...
Let's assume that it's no trouble at all for the Creator. The fact remains, though, that the design leaves the determination of the gender to a bacteria, rather than genetically. It certainly makes it more complex (to us, that is) than if there were only the X and Y chromosomes. And AFAIK, no design theory has been able to tell us why that is the case. Evolution theory clearly wins here.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Read my post above. This is only true if the gender is decided by two chromosomes, either X or Y.
Nature is more complex than this. In many species, the gender is decided by three chromosomes or more. There is a Paternal-Sex-Ratio chromosome (a B chromosome) whose sole purpose (as far as we know today) is to distort the sex ratio of the offsprings. In other species, the gender is decided chemically after birth, rather than genetically. So the ratio can vary wildly from species to species.
I wrote this based on your original post. Here is the point that I am arguing from your original post:
It turns out, that the 1:1 ratio is the result of competition between the males. According to the theory of evolution, if the costs of reproduction for males and females are about the same, then competition across the entire population will lead to the 1:1 ratio.
The evolution theory also predicts that if the males compete only in a local population (within a single herd, for example) while the females disperse throughout the global population (leaving the herd at adulthood), then the percentage of males should drop significantly. The ratio is essentially a function of the local population size (Local Mate Competition Model).
You are using the 1:1 ratio to describe the situation, and then you say that is not what you meant. Maybe you attempted to correct yourself later, but this argument is weak. Also, you show a specific equation written up to prove evolution theory, but do not take into consideration that the creator or designer has the intelligence to have written this equation into the genetic code of the individual species you use as examples for purposes of reproduction. By that I mean that the designer gave the species the instinct to understand how to populate itself in order to create a 1:1 ratio.
What is great though is that you do not explain your viewpoint properly, and then start calling everyone else an idiot. Well done.
Quote from drmarkan:
I wrote this based on your original post. Here is the point that I am arguing from your original post:
It turns out, that the 1:1 ratio is the result of competition between the males. According to the theory of evolution, if the costs of reproduction for males and females are about the same, then competition across the entire population will lead to the 1:1 ratio.
The evolution theory also predicts that if the males compete only in a local population (within a single herd, for example) while the females disperse throughout the global population (leaving the herd at adulthood), then the percentage of males should drop significantly. The ratio is essentially a function of the local population size (Local Mate Competition Model).
You are using the 1:1 ratio to describe the situation, and then you say that is not what you meant. Maybe you attempted to correct yourself later, but this argument is weak. Also, you show a specific equation written up to prove evolution theory, but do not take into consideration that the creator or designer has the intelligence to have written this equation into the genetic code of the individual species you use as examples for purposes of reproduction. By that I mean that the designer gave the species the instinct to understand how to populate itself in order to create a 1:1 ratio.
What is great though is that you do not explain your viewpoint properly, and then start calling everyone else an idiot. Well done.
This was in the original post:
"The evolution theory also predicts that if the males compete only in a local population (within a single herd, for example) while the females disperse throughout the global population (leaving the herd at adulthood), then the percentage of males should drop significantly. The ratio is essentially a function of the local population size (Local Mate Competition Model)."
Tell me, if the 1:1 ratio is the benchmark we start with, what would the ratio be if "the percentage of males should drop significantly?" Is it still 1:1? Why would it be "a function of the local population size" if it doesn't change?
It would be clearer if you ever bothered to read the article in the link given. I gave you two chances to read it. Anyone who still don't get it deserves to be called "idiot."
You are doing nothing, nothing at all to show that the changes we see are not by design and plan...
You conclude that it is not by design, and I have yet to ever hear a cogent response to support that claim beyond "It would too difficult for God" "Why would God do that" "God should have done it this way, God made it too complicated, God made it too simple...."blah, blah, blah...
There has to be a reason to rule out design, and the fact is you have never, ever done that. You assume chance, where there is no ruling out of design. So the entire argument is based on an assumption unproved and unprovable...
Not trying to tell you what to believe but pushing your faith is not science...
Oh, and you conveniently skipped over the history of "human evolution."
Too funny...
Lets see, is it logically possible that world as we see it was "designed" in the manner we see it for human beings?
Of course.
Now the whiny children will complain that it is not a perfect world as they would design it, but of course they have never designed a planetary system...
LOL!
What you refuse to do is stay on a path of logic, ignoring logical thinking to push your evolutionary belief system...
Hardly scientific...
You conclude that it is not by design, and I have yet to ever hear a cogent response to support that claim beyond "It would too difficult for God" "Why would God do that" "God should have done it this way, God made it too complicated, God made it too simple...."blah, blah, blah...
There has to be a reason to rule out design, and the fact is you have never, ever done that. You assume chance, where there is no ruling out of design. So the entire argument is based on an assumption unproved and unprovable...
Not trying to tell you what to believe but pushing your faith is not science...
Oh, and you conveniently skipped over the history of "human evolution."
Too funny...
Lets see, is it logically possible that world as we see it was "designed" in the manner we see it for human beings?
Of course.
Now the whiny children will complain that it is not a perfect world as they would design it, but of course they have never designed a planetary system...
LOL!
What you refuse to do is stay on a path of logic, ignoring logical thinking to push your evolutionary belief system...
Hardly scientific...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Let's assume that it's no trouble at all for the Creator. The fact remains, though, that the design leaves the determination of the gender to a bacteria, rather than genetically. It certainly makes it more complex (to us, that is) than if there were only the X and Y chromosomes. And AFAIK, no design theory has been able to tell us why that is the case. Evolution theory clearly wins here.