A thread for ID proponents to explain their alternative theory for biological phenomena.
Allan Miller has written an article on sex, proposing an evolutionary explanation for why almost all Eukaryota indulge in sex. In response to comments from evolution skeptics questioning his explanation, he challenges them:
OK, you ID types, what’s the Design explanation for sex? You need to explain why all eukaryotes have genes that are involved in meiosis, though some never actually perform meiosis, and in some, the genes are ‘broken’. And you need to explain the taxonomic distribution of asexuality – absent in mammals and birds, but increasingly found as one descends your imagined scala naturae – though intermittent sex remains the norm, even in single celled organisms.
Why? What purpose does it serve that is common to single celled protists and our favourite organism, the chimp? Why wasn’t everything designed to just reproduce asexually?
In response, commenter phoodoo writes:
Why are there legs? Wouldn’t it be better if we just moved like water? Why ten fingers instead of thirty? Why skin? Evolution doesn’t answer these questions any better or worse than ID.
Now, for evolution to have a better or worse explanation than ID, there must be an explanation for sex according to the theory of “Intelligent Design”.
I don’t know of any Intelligent Design theory that attempts to explain biological observations such as sexual reproduction. So I invite those who do know of such a theory to correct my ignorance.
How does the theory of Intelligent Design explain sex?
PS: please feel free to use this thread as a peanut gallery WRT Allan’s article.
Why do some populations have a suboptimal mechanism for homogenizing? Shouldn’t they all be sexual?
We can do this all week, Nonlin. At some point you will need to provide reasons.
Also, you are contradicting yourself again. Previously, you claimed that sex was a mechanism for homogenizing populations, but now it turns out asexual populations are homogeneous as well. Except that species with clonal lineages are NOT homogeneous, because the lineages are like inbred families, and are all WAY different from each other. Clear like mud, Nonlin.
If it is that easy, then why can’t you give me a clear answer?
How did clonal lineages get to be different in the first place? Were they created that way, or did they diverge from a common ancestor? It seems like you support the first option, so why not state this explicitly? Is it because then you need to concede each lineage qualifies as a separate kind?
Enough with the nonsense. I explained. Go read.
Not at all. Go read the original post. And force yourself to understand!
I can. But you never read. And you never acknowledge. So why encourage bad behavior? Again. Go read!