Why Johnny Can't Get Laid

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON I: Spotted River Newts

 

In a highland forest, a group of spotted river newts lived along the banks of a small stream.  The soil along the bottom of the stream, and along the banks on either side, was composed mainly of sand and gravel.  The spots on the river newts’ skin was perfectly adapted to provide camouflage in that environment; and, as a result, the newts thrived.  Unfortunately, this also meant that they began to deplete the resources in their environment to the point that finding food was becoming difficult.

 

Because of this, a small group of younger, more adventurous newts drifted wider and wider in search of food, until they eventually swam several miles downstream to a grassy, lowland savannah.  Here, the bottom of the stream, as well as the banks on either side, were covered in various grasses and reeds.  The spots on their skin, which had afforded them such perfect camouflage in the highland mountains, now made them extremely conspicuous; and they became easy prey for kestrels and peregrines passing overhead.

 

 Many of the newts were carried off by these birds of prey; but a few of them survived because they had slightly elongated spots that blended slightly better into their environment than the rounded, circular spots of their friends.  It was only a slight advantage; but it was enough.  These elongated spot newts were able to live long enough to mate with one another, which meant that the gene for elongated spots was passed down to their offspring.  More of this second generation were able to survive and pass the elongated gene to their progeny.  With each successive generation, the elongated gene was enhanced until it became a dominant gene which coded for stripes instead of spots.

 

Thus, a new species of striped river newts evolved, genotypically similar to their spotted cousins in the highlands, but phenotypically unique.

 

This is evolution in a nutshell.  Evolution is not an attempt to explain how life on earth began; nor is it an attempt to explain how the universe came to exist.  Evolution simply explains how different species came to exist by way of two key factors: selective environmental pressures, and genetic variance.  More on these two factors will follow; but, for now, it needs to clearly be understood that anything outside of providing the explanation for distinction among species (speciation) is outside of the scope of evolution.  Evolution cannot be used to answer why there is something rather than nothing, or how biology emanated from chemistry.  Attempting to use evolution as some sort of catch-all General Theory of Everything is much like attempting to build a house with only a hammer in one’s toolbox: one is likely to end up with a roughshod and flimsy structure easily demolished by the slightest breeze of genuine information.

 

 In the interest of providing scientific evidence to support the statements made within these lessons, I have added a few photographs which should serve to support the claim that newts exist.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON II:  Fools and Sages

 

The following “question” was recently posed by one of our less enlightened guests:

 

“We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in goo-to-you evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation.”

 

Now, I suspect that the question was simply copy-and-pasted by our less-than-intellectually-honest apologist friend as a means of bull-headedly sticking to his god of the gaps argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  In fact, the very way the “question” is framed shows the woeful naivete of a simpleton with little understanding of the way biological evolution occurs.  The first clue is the phrase “formed by mere chance”, which, as can be seen with our friends in the newt community, is simply not, and never has been, the driving force behind evolutionary adaptations.  Genetic variation reacts to selective pressures in the environment to drive adaptation; and the more advantage any particular adaptation gives to a species, the more successful that species will become, which will in turn, allow for that adaptation to be passed down to successive generations–both enhancing their survival as well as the adaptation itself.

 

Unfortunately, to tell the entire story of the evolution of human sexual reproduction would require more space and bandwidth than our humble community can, at present, provide, as well as a deeper understanding of evolution than has, thus far, been exhibited by our gawk-jawed goo-to-you guest grasps at.  What can be covered here, in our forums, is a basic presentation of the early stages of sexual reproduction and the reasons it evolved the way it did.  Hopefully, this will encourage those with the curiosity and intellectual capacity to further their own study upon the subject matter.

 

Again, in the interest of providing evidence that both fools and sages exist, please see the images below:

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON III:  My Blue-Eyed Boy

 

As mentioned, genetic variance in response to selective pressure, is the engine that drives evolution.  But what does genetic variance mean?  What is it?  In short, it simply means there are multiple genes coding for a certain characteristic, rather than one.  In asexual prokaryotic organisms, reproduction is achieved by simple cell division.  This means that whatever genetic information is contained within the mother cell is passed down to each of the daughter cells, an exact replication, without variation.  However, with the process of sexual reproduction, two copies of the genetic information is passed down; and these copies are both unique to their respective contributor.  So, for example, there are two copies of the gene that codes for eye color.  Both copies may be “brown”; or one copy might be “green” and the other “blue.”  This is because of an even further enhancement of genetic variance: heterozygous versus homozygous.  A person who got a copy of the brown-eye gene from their mother, and a duplicate copy of the brown-eye gene from their father, will be homozygous for the eye color gene (BB).  However, a person might get a brown-eye gene from Mom and a blue-eye gene from Pop; this person is heterozygous for the eye color gene.  The Punnett Square image below shows that heterozygosity increases the probability of genetic variance in the offspring.  A homozygous brown-eyed couple will produce brown-eyed kids.  If one parent is homozygous for brown and the other for blue, then the blue-eye gene will be passed to their kids, but not expressed because brown is the dominant gene.  However, if one parent is homozygous for blue eyes, and the other is heterozygous for brown and blue, then each child from that couple will have a greater chance of expressing blue eyes.

 

Now, obviously, eye-color is not one of the most important adaptations to allow a species to thrive in a particular environment.  It is, however, a relatively easy example to follow; and, as someone who has been with a blue-eyed lady in the past, I can provide anecdotal evidence that it greatly enhances the experience in a number of ways (including frequency), especially if she also has red hair and speaks with a lilting brogue.  And, attraction is, of course, generally one of the first steps toward sexual reproduction.

 

Now consider other adaptations which are more obviously related to the survival and prosperity of a species.  A rabbit’s closest extant relative is a pika; but the rabbit evolved with gargantuan ears and heavy, powerful hinter muscles, while the pika did not.  Why?  The answer is simply down to the selective pressures in the environments in which both species evolved.  The long-ear gene gave the rabbit the advantage of being able to hear predators at great distances; and its ability to outrun them when necessary ensured their survival.  The pika, in contrast, evolved much smaller with a survival strategy based on living underground in extremely cold temperatures where few predators are willing to hunt.

 

So, it is easy to see how genetic variation drives the engine of evolution.  And the introduction of new selective pressures into an environment can, and does, lead to new adaptations.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON IV:  Conjugal Visits

 

As mentioned previously, in prokaryotic asexual organisms, genetic material is simply replicated and passed down without any kind of variation.  It can easily, and rather quickly, be realized why this particular reproductive strategy might put such species at a distinct disadvantage.  Without genetic variance, there can be no response to environmental pressures as they arise.  The single-celled organisms which first gave rise to life on earth faced a number of such pressures including (not limited to) temperature changes, changes in the pH of their environment, shifts in the amount of nutrients from which they drew their “food,” and the introduction of gases which may have been toxic.  How on earth (literally) did our bacterial ancestors live long enough to evolve into something more suited to such harsh environments?  Occam’s Razor precludes positing a god-of-the-gaps; and, as we have seen, random chance was obviously not involved.  So, how did enough of them survive to adapt?  The answer is simple, yet surprising:

 

They had sex.

 

That’s right.  These asexual, prokaryotic organisms had sex.  However, they were not having sex for the purpose of reproduction, or even recreation, as humans do.  They were literally having sex for survival.

 

To understand this, we need to first look at the bacterial version of DNA.  As we know, bacterial cells are not very complex in their structure.  Unlike eukaryotic cells, they do not have organelles, nor do they have a cellular nucleus in which to house their genetic information.  Instead, bacteria have the main portion of their DNA in the form of a rudimentary chromosome suspended in the cellular plasma.  However, bacteria additionally have small, circular DNA “rings” known as plasmids.  These plasmids contain additional genetic material which may be of benefit to the cell in some way.  In modern parlance, an example would be the virulence factors of certain bacterial strains.  The virulence factor is what makes us sick when we are infected; and the genes which code for virulence factors are often found in the plasmid DNA.

 

Certain plasmids, known as conjugation plasmids, contain thetra genes, which code for the cell to produce a tube-like appendage known as a “sex pilus.”  This is, essentially, the bacterial version of a penis, and allows for direct, cell-to-cell transfer of plasmid DNA.  In other words, the sex pilus allows a copy of a plasmid to be safely transferred from the donor cell to the recipient cell.  This transfer can be further enhanced by fertility plasmids (F-Plasmids), which are plasmids that contain genetic information that can be directly inserted into the normal, chromosomal DNA of the recipient cell.  In this way, new genetic information can be passed between bacterial cells, despite the lack of genetic variance in their reproductive strategy.  It should also be noted that bacteria can take up genetic information directly from their environment in a process known as transduction; and can be “infected” with new information, usually with a virus acting as a vector, in the process of transformation.

 

Now, imagine a bacterial colony swimming around in a pool of primordial ooze when suddenly a meteorite hits near the pool and releases a cloud of methane.  These bacteria have adapted to the concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen normally found in their environment.  The introduction of this toxic methane gas will kill off most of the bacteria, just as the peregrines and kestrels killed most of the spotted river newts in our opening example.  However, a few of the bacteria have a methane-resistance gene; just as a few of our newts had an elongated spot gene.  These bacteria can transfer this methane resistance to other bacteria in their immediate area, thus protecting them from the methane.  And if the genetic material is passed through an F-Plasmid, and can be directly incorporated into the chromosomal DNA, then not only is the recipient cell protected, but that methane resistance gene will be passed on to the daughter cells when the mother cell divides.

 

So, here again we see that genetic variance drives the engine of evolutionary adaptability. So much so, that sexual reproduction evolved to ensure genetic variance to ensure continued evolution.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/bacterial-conjugation

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON V: The Red Queen

 

By the time that eukaryotic organism began to appear on the evolutionary timeline, sex for survival and adaptation was already a familiar concept.  But why did sex become the overwhelming norm for the purpose of reproduction?  The answer to that, at the risk of belaboring the point, lies in genetic variance and selective environmental pressures.  Ho-hum…

 

In that most auspicious year of 1973, a fellow by the name of Leigh Van Halen (rock on!) proposed a hypothesis known as the Red Queen, named after the character in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass” who famously said, “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

 

It must be remembered that no species ever evolved in a vacuum; and few have ever been called upon to survive without any selective pressures from their environments.  Each species evolved within a community of other species which were also evolving.  Thus, competition for limited resources became one of the main selective pressures placed upon an environmental community.  It should also be remembered that evolution, indeed survival itself, is somewhat of an arms race between predator and prey; and each must continuously adapt in order to stay slightly ahead of the other. 

 

Genetic variation in response to both of these pressures became a necessity in order to adapt and evolve; because the other species within an environment were also adapting and evolving at the same time.  While asexual reproduction is much more cost-effective, both at the species level and at the individual level, the nearly complete lack of genetic variance leads directly to evolutionary stagnation, which, in the context of environmental competition, equates to extinction and in short order.  The Red Queen’s sentiment, therefore, that one must keep running just to stand still but run even faster to gain any headway, provides insight into why the simplicity and efficiency of asexual reproduction has been consistently traded for the expedience of variability which comes from sexual reproduction.

 

There are many examples of the Red Queen in action.  One such is that bats evolved to hunt their prey by means of echolocation–making “clicks” at frequencies as high as 212KHz in some cases.  Greater Wax Moths evolved to be able to hear at frequencies as high as 300KHz, thus allowing them to hear the bats who are hunting them and make a dashing escape before being invited to a very one-sided dinner date.

 

The key to both the bat’s noise and the moth’s poise is the genetic variance afforded by sexual reproduction.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/red-queen-hypothesis

[TheRedneckProfessor]

LESSON VI:  Sex Cells and Sex Sells

 

Due to the adaptability provided by genetic variance, evolution is an on-going process.  And while most wild-type species still deal with the natural selective pressures of their own environments, new selective pressures, driven mainly by the technologies of the modern era, are producing some very interesting adaptations.  Bedbugs have evolved waxy exoskeletons which make them invulnerable to pesticides; a new species of mouse, a hybrid between the Algerian and the common house mouse, has a chunk of genetic material that codes for resistance to warfarin, the common ingredient in mouse poison.  Of course, before the advent of antibiotics, specifically methicillin, there was no such thing as MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus); but the selective pressure put on the original Staph led to an adaptation in response.

 

It is easy, then, to see that a perfectly natural explanation to the evolution of sexual reproduction exists, without appealing to gods of gaps or random chance.  Genetic variation drives adaptability in response to environmental pressure.  Sexual reproduction provides the best means (so far) of ensuring genetic variance.  Thus, the evolution which drove sexual reproduction is now being driven by sexual reproduction; and the two continue to drive each other even as selective pressures change and adapt.

[TABA]

Great stuff Prof!  Thanks for posting this, especially in digestible chunks as you did.  Truth really is stranger than fiction, and science more awesome than creation myths!

 

Are there any books you’d recommend for the non-scientist reader who wants to know more? Dawkins’s “The Selfish Gene” comes to mind, but I haven’t read it.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, TABA said:

Are there any books you’d recommend for the non-scientist reader who wants to know more? Dawkins’s “The Selfish Gene” comes to mind, but I haven’t read it.  

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

by Matt Ridley

Your Inner Fish: a Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

by Neil Shubin 

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

by Richard Dawkins 

[duderonomy]

Dear God,

 

On 7/19/2022 at 10:17 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Your Inner Fish: a Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

 

 

Amen,

 

Duderonomy.

[duderonomy]

On 7/19/2022 at 10:17 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

How is the "Blind Watchmaker" argument not a fallacy?  

[duderonomy]

Hello, anybody! 

 

Isn't the Blind Watchmaker fallacy an argument from incredulity? 

[pantheory]

On 7/18/2022 at 12:28 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

LESSON V: The Red Queen

 

By the time that eukaryotic organism began to appear on the evolutionary timeline, sex for survival and adaptation was already a familiar concept.  But why did sex become the overwhelming norm for the purpose of reproduction?  The answer to that, at the risk of belaboring the point, lies in genetic variance and selective environmental pressures.  Ho-hum…

 

In that most auspicious year of 1973, a fellow by the name of Leigh Van Halen (rock on!) proposed a hypothesis known as the Red Queen, named after the character in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass” who famously said, “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

 

It must be remembered that no species ever evolved in a vacuum; and few have ever been called upon to survive without any selective pressures from their environments.  Each species evolved within a community of other species which were also evolving.  Thus, competition for limited resources became one of the main selective pressures placed upon an environmental community.  It should also be remembered that evolution, indeed survival itself, is somewhat of an arms race between predator and prey; and each must continuously adapt in order to stay slightly ahead of the other. 

 

Genetic variation in response to both of these pressures became a necessity in order to adapt and evolve; because the other species within an environment were also adapting and evolving at the same time.  While asexual reproduction is much more cost-effective, both at the species level and at the individual level, the nearly complete lack of genetic variance leads directly to evolutionary stagnation, which, in the context of environmental competition, equates to extinction and in short order.  The Red Queen’s sentiment, therefore, that one must keep running just to stand still but run even faster to gain any headway, provides insight into why the simplicity and efficiency of asexual reproduction has been consistently traded for the expedience of variability which comes from sexual reproduction.

 

There are many examples of the Red Queen in action.  One such is that bats evolved to hunt their prey by means of echolocation–making “clicks” at frequencies as high as 212KHz in some cases.  Greater Wax Moths evolved to be able to hear at frequencies as high as 300KHz, thus allowing them to hear the bats who are hunting them and make a dashing escape before being invited to a very one-sided dinner date.

 

The key to both the bat’s noise and the moth’s poise is the genetic variance afforded by sexual reproduction.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/red-queen-hypothesis

 

All are cool lessons. I haven't finished reading them all, but am looking forward to it because bio-science is right up my alley. Don't know why I didn't see these posting before.

 

But I have another insight why Johnny doesn't get laid. He is 30 lbs. overweight, has little game, doesn't get out much, doesn't groom himself much, and is not that good socially.