Darwinism Evolution

The real reason evolution shouldn’t be taught in school: Or, sex evolved in order to … what WAS that?

Spread the love

To prevent parasite infections by promoting “genetic variation” (Jul 7, 2011):

Sexual reproduction, then, serves as a way to keep introducing genetic variety, a process that has to constantly be repeated in order to continue staving off attacks the latest and deadliest parasites. This is known as the “Red Queen Hypothesis”, taking its name from a line in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass in which, “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”

But no, wait. According to another study, “Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue” (ScienceDaily, July 7, 2011):

Heng and fellow researcher Root Gorelick, Ph.D., associate professor at Carleton University in Canada, propose that although diversity may result from a combination of genes, the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.
“If sex was merely for increasing genetic diversity, it would not have evolved in the first place,” said Heng. This is because asexual reproduction — in which only one parent is needed to procreate — leads to higher rates of genetic diversity than sex.

Okay. Here is the real reason evolution shouldn’t be taught in school: (Texas Freedom network, are you listening?)

Not because of Bill Dembski.

Because, evolution, right now, is just a pack of warring media releases.

2 Replies to “The real reason evolution shouldn’t be taught in school: Or, sex evolved in order to … what WAS that?

  1. 1
    Tim AJ says:

    Having worked in a human genetic testing lab and seeing the large number of patients with every type of genetic mutations – and having considered the high risk factor each person has in carrying just one bad copy of a bad gene – and have examined this subject – the reason for mating is because the greatest existential threat to a species happens to be the risk of genetic mutations and mating acts as a genetic screen.

    Mating is almost universal outside prokaryotes and happens even in those species when it has been shown they have remained the same for 25 million years. Mating happens with or without evolution.

    In vertebrates there is one egg and it is a natural process of screening. For example the older male buck with larger horns, having already demonstrated the ability to survive, is more likely to mate with a doe. It is about keeping a healthy genome. It is about the natural way of screening out genetic mutations. It is about keeping diversity and it is generational. The Large older male seal might win the mating of ten females for a season – but only for one season. It is about reducing the affects of mutation on the species through keeping genetic variation. It is not about evolution!

    There has been two wrong assumptions that have come out falsely placing mating in the category of evolution. Number one was given by Darwin. For him mate selection was about evolving. He believed that by mixing our genetics with another race we were undoing or watering down evolution. That as a group we grow stronger. This is the Nazi view. The second extreme assumption comes out of this need for equality. We deny genetic disease (or just dismiss it). We even deny that there is no difference between male and female, and even deny the universality of the mating process. We blame all the problems on a faulty political system. We blame the problem on a weak mind. This is the communist view.

    Mating is part of life. It is discriminating. We are all equal in dignity – but not physical (genetically). Humans mate for life and the Darwin predatorily sexuality is a perversion. And humans do not run in packs like wolfs with an alpha wolf in charge – different species, different environment.

  2. 2
    Tim AJ says:

    The article’s title “Sex is not about promoting genetic variation” is correct. But the explanation found in the article is wrong. There is always this desire to see everything through the lens of evolution, but they fail to see the most obvious. It is about the existential threat of mutations. 1 in 25 Europeans carry the Cystic Fibrosis mutation. This is only one gene – and one risk factor. The risk factors are high and mating is a screening process. It is as obvious as the nose in front of everyone’s face – and to try to place it as an evolutionary process is crap. The article is still a distortion of truth.

Leave a Reply